All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2025 - Viva & Barnes
02:24:11
Ep. 270: MASSIVE SCOTUS WINS! Big Beautiful Bill! New-Scum Sues! Diddy Watch! Big Apple Rot & MORE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, everybody.
Am I live here?
Okay, we're live.
Sorry, I just got distracted because it says you were disconnected from this stream.
Tonight, you are looking at Dr. Peter McCullough with a video clip talking about the proposition of Americans wearing wearables in order to potentially increase their health.
Tonight, we have no sponsor for the show, but it happens to be just the wellness company anyhow with Dr. Peter McCullough.
Starting off today's show, you will notice that I am not on my good mic because I'm not in my home studio.
I'm on the road.
Enjoy the opening.
Callie means he's in his 30s.
He's got a checkered past where he claims to be a pharmaceutical consultant for Purdue Pharma.
Remember, Purdue Pharma is the company that paid huge fines for all their infractions, promoting, actually getting patients hooked on OxyContin.
I can tell you, as a young man who's a pharmaceutical consultant, you know, a young person, he wouldn't have any advice to offer.
He was probably one of the people who was handing out the pens at the drug promotional meetings.
And that's what quote pharmaceutical consultants do.
They essentially, they're meeting coordinators.
They're kind of low-level meeting coordinators.
Suddenly now he's in a special government position.
He has a company that's trying to drain money out of health savings accounts and then take part of it for himself.
And, you know, he's exposed himself by attacking the wellness company publicly.
Our CEO, Peter Galilli, has exposed all this and Gateway Pundit in the media.
He's been reported to DOJ, White House Ethics, HH Ethics, the committees on both sides.
And now, sure enough, Jake Achenkloss in the U.S. House of Representatives holds up a poster showing Means head connected financially and how he's obviously violating every principle of conflict of interest of a special government employee.
So Kennedy would really do himself a service by just breaking ties with the Means family.
Remember, Grady Means is the father.
He's behind the scenes.
Welcome.
We'll end it there.
You see, when I first brought this up, let me bring up the highlight here.
It said, McCullough Foundation, conflicts of interest still run rampant at HHS.
Americans don't want biometric wearables forced upon them.
And that video there.
We're going to talk about that in a second when Barnes gets in here.
Everybody, as you can obviously tell, I'm not in my home studio.
We're going to have good lighting until the sun fully sets.
On the road, I had to dump one kid off at camp today, which means we're traveling with three kids.
I see the only saving grace of my splitting headache is that we didn't also have the two dogs to deal with today.
But we are having our Sunday night show on the road.
Barnes is not in his typical location.
I am not in my typical location.
As we were driving up here, I was looking into just a few things.
We started talking about the wearables and RFK Jr. talking about this suggestion that Americans should wear wearables, these fitness tracking devices, and everybody's freaking out saying, oh my goodness, invasion of privacy, yada, yada, yada.
I do subscribe to the idea that there is no better tracking device than this little thing right here that everybody does have.
But as I was talking about wearables with my wife and kids, I just asked the question, like, do you know what the rate of obesity of Americans is compared to other countries?
It's actually comparable to other countries.
So when people say, you know, America has an obesity problem, it might.
So does Canada.
So does France.
So does the UK.
You know what country doesn't have an obesity problem?
Everybody's going to get it probably in one second because it's the most obvious country.
My kid said North Korea.
And it's like, first of all, I don't know if we can rely on those stats.
Japan.
And even China has a bit of a problem, but China's obesity problem is a fraction of the obesity problem of America.
So the idea that wearables, you know, they might communicate information and nobody likes the invasion of privacy, but I appreciate to some extent what RFK Jr. is talking about in terms of sensitizing Americans to get into shape, to get healthy.
It's something like over 50% are overweight and then another substantial portion is morbidly obese.
And it's like, that takes generations to accrue.
And I don't know how you start turning that clock back.
When it comes to Callie Means, I'm going to defer to Barnes on this.
We're going to start with a sort of an impromptu subject matter that is not on the menu for tonight.
But before we even get too far into this, if you're new to the channel, Viva Fry, David Fryhead, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
This is our Sunday night law extravaganza.
And if it looks like I'm having a little bit of trouble talking or more than normal, I bit my tongue.
And then, you know, you start eating a little bit differently.
And then I bit my cheek, compensating to bite my tongue.
And now I'm just in a world of pain, which I'll try to hide throughout this stream.
But it's going to be another big one.
We had a massive week in the news.
We've got a massive week in terms of SCOTUS rulings.
We've got a massive week in terms of what in the name of sweet holy hell is going on with the Liver King and Joe Rogan and whether or not what Liver King did qualified as terroristic threats.
But without further ado, we got Barnes in the backdrop.
He's going to be coming in in a matter of seconds.
Slinks over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com says, where to stay while in Chattanooga for the 1776 fundraising event?
I'm going to let Barnes feel that one.
I know he's got a number of suggestions.
And Buffalo Betsy said, I stopped wearing my Samsung smartwatch a few years ago because of this.
I don't want my internal health data shared with any government on principle.
That I actually very much agree with.
When I got an insurance policy up in Canada and they said, you'll get premiums off and you'll get better rates and whatever if you wear this thing and then, you know, give your updates.
I was like, oh, yeah, that's good.
I'll get discounts until you no longer get the discounts.
And then you start getting the penalties if they start realizing certain things are not going on well in the body.
I don't really have that concern except for, you know, the irrational fear of spontaneous death.
But you realize like it starts off as perks, then it becomes an expectation, then it becomes An obligation, and then it goes into penalties for not being healthy enough or getting enough steps in during the day for not doing your government-imposed health exercise regiment.
Spam Ranger says the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Shirazi, has issued a fatwa.
I'm not reading that word, but for the assassination of President Trump.
A fatwa is a religious death warrant issued to the masses.
It is the religious equivalent of putting a multi-million dollar bounty for assassination.
This fatwa is executable by any random person worldwide.
Strong, diligent measures need to be taken to protect the president.
And then it goes down here, President Trump.
Yes, but from what I also heard, they called a fatwa on nuclear weapons as well.
So there's that.
Robert Barnes, whenever you're ready, come on in.
We're going to talk about a big week of averting disaster and a big week of monumental smashing W's at the Supreme Court and some infighting that was wild.
By the way, let me bring this one up before just a little meanwhile in Canada update because a news piece that will pique your interest yet again.
You know, you had your Maryland man, which is Kilmar Albrego Garcia, illegal alien, wife beater, alleged human trafficker, alleged MS-13 gang member.
They call him a Maryland man, Maryland resident.
We're witnessing a similar phenomenon in Canada.
And you dig into the stories and then the headlines don't really make that much sense anymore.
You have a headline, by the way.
Not for nothing.
We're going to have our own grooming gang crisis in Canada like they had in the UK.
From CBC News, Manitoba hotel owners charged with trafficking employees who were underpaid, threatened with deportation, says the RCMP.
Victims from India thought they'd work legally but were forced to work long days, paid half minimum wage, says the RCMP.
You read that headline and you might have a different apprehension or impression of what the article is actually going to be about if you don't bother to read the actual article.
Listen to this.
A couple who owns a hotel in the rural municipality of Portage-La Préry have been charged with human trafficking following a months-long investigation where four employees from India reported being underpaid, forced to work 15-hour days and threatened with deportation.
Also known to the Democrats as why we need illegal aliens.
Am I right or am I right?
Listen to this.
Jai Inder Sandhu, 62, and Satbir Sandhu, 48, were charged with trafficking in persons and receiving material benefit from tracking Sergeant Kathy Farle of Manitoba.
I wonder what, before they announced this press release, did they do a land recognition?
We are here in La Prairie, not La Prairie, in Portage La Prairie, the unceded land of the Miskusha, whatever, whatever, tried.
They didn't do that here.
The title mentions Manitoba hotel owners and doesn't mention anything about ethnicity.
Doesn't mention anything about identification.
You get into it, and the individuals who are exploiting illegals from India are Jair Indu Sandhu, Indrusandhu, and Satbir Sandhu.
You can make a guess as to where they're from.
Probably not Manitoba, but maybe I'm wrong.
He was also charged with withholding or destroying documents and uttering threats.
Police did not identify the hotel by name, but CBC has confirmed Jai Indr Sandhu is an owner of the Howard Johnson Hotel in Portage-La Prery.
That's going to be some good, good advertising for Hojo.
CBC reached out to the Howard Johnson's corporate office for comment.
The investigation began February 9th, when Mounties got a call about a disturbance at the hotel west of Winnipeg, where four employees lived and worked.
Two female employees later came forward to report their situation.
Another woman and a man were later identified.
Our goal from the outset was to help these victims of labor trafficking.
If you ask, what's his face?
Crying Kinzinger, this is what you need illegals for, right?
Nobody's going to pick the fruits and vegetables in the fields.
Nobody's going to screw in those little screws in the iPhones if you bring manufacturing back.
Nobody's going to wash your toilets, as Osborne said.
This is what they use illegal immigration for.
And then when it turns into the exact human trafficking that some of us have been screaming about for a little while, who could have seen it coming?
They come to Canada in good faith, believing they were going to work legally and be protected.
Instead, they were threatened and were to work for little pay.
Farrell said all four employees were promised fair wages.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay, good.
Until recently, those assessments both allowed four nationals to work legally in Canada and increased their chances of becoming permanent residents.
Indentured servants.
How long have we been saying that for?
Hey, come on on illegally.
We promise you you'll get citizenship so long as we can exploit you in the meantime.
Oh, what's that?
This one was a little bit too much.
In Portage La Pré, while three of the employees eventually got the assessment documents, which would have legalized their work, the employer didn't meet the conditions outlined.
Another of the employees never got one, the RCMP said.
Employees reported being paid roughly half of Manitoba's minimum hourly rage, said they faced threats of deportation and other intimidation tactics.
In one instance, one person said their identification documents were withheld from them.
The party, the four did pretty much everything at the hotel.
Victims urged to reach out for help.
We don't need to go through the rest of this.
This is, incidentally, exactly what the illegal human trafficking is intended to produce.
Cheap, captured labor that you could exploit.
And then when people get caught doing it, oh, we had no idea.
This is what's going on.
It's only by design.
Robert Sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
And you look very good, very dapper.
Where are you now, if I may ask?
Because it's a new setup.
Tattanooga, Tennessee.
Booyah.
And how's everything?
I mean, how is the I see?
Oh, I got to grab the door real quick.
Okay, go for it.
And I'll do Barge Inside Pitching.
Yay, says Sheen Visage.
Oh, let me see.
So, by the way, we are live across all four platforms, Rumble, ConnieTube, Twitter, and VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
We're going to have our VivaBarneslaw.locals.com after party later on.
I mentioned it, I posted up in the locals community that Robert's nephew passed away about a week and a half ago.
His sister's son suddenly, and I was surfing, I was looking at the obituary and you can make donations.
And Robert, I'm just going to share the give, send, go for your nephew's family.
If anybody can support it, I set this up.
It goes to Ellen.
It goes to the sister.
She's handling everything after this.
I just set it up and made the first contribution so that everybody knows it's straight Up legit because now there's children who are not going to have a father and who need to take care of things.
So I'll give everybody the link if you can go support that.
It would be great.
Robert, how is the family doing?
You know, the funeral is tomorrow.
So different people coming into town.
My brother comes in this evening.
I'll just open the door for another nephew.
He keeps me up to date on what the young commies are thinking because he's part commie.
But sweetheart of a kid.
The looked a lot like when he was like two.
He looked like, you know, Mikey from the life.
You remember the life cereal commercial?
He likes it.
He likes it.
Yes, yes, exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
He looked just like him.
But yeah, so everybody's coming into town and the funeral is tomorrow and put the information up.
Anybody's free to come to it, obviously.
So some people had asked about that.
That's no problem at all.
Okay.
All right.
Well, we'll move on.
We'll move on to the news because it's a wild week.
Speaking of me, you're talking about forced labor there in Canada.
We got a forced labor suit brought against a U.S. company involved with the Qataris, who were in the news all week for making peace, but this concerned their World Cup construction by a U.S. company, Filipino workers being abused.
We got you did a breakdown of it.
Gavin Newsom suing Fox.
Did you notice who the lawyer was on the case?
I did.
See, I'm an idiot.
I didn't look, but let me see if I can take a guess.
Am I going to be able to guess the name?
I won't guess the name.
I have one in mind.
Tell me.
I'll honestly tell you if it was.
Guess what case they're associated with?
Russia Gate?
No, it's the lawyer who sued Alex Jones.
Oh, yeah.
Gabby Newsome, the crazy lawyer from Texas suing in Delaware because Fox chooses to stay in Delaware.
We'll get to that in a second.
Briefly on the B.B. Netanyahu trial, which appears may be postponed.
What's that all about?
The P. Diddy verdict watch is now ongoing after closing arguments, I believe, were made this past Friday.
And then we got a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot of SCODUS.
We got universal injunctions.
We got the administrative state.
We've got schools going woke.
We've got the right to opt out for parents.
We've got a famous Amish case making new precedent effectively through that school's case.
We got criminal sentencing laws in the First Step Act.
We got immigration.
We got the right to bring a 1983 claim.
We got the Planned Parenthood demand for federal funding.
We've got DNA testing, how those rules work for people that claim they are innocent.
And as Justice Jackson would say, a whole lot of legalese.
A whole lot of legalese.
Tedious, tedious questions.
Tedious legalese.
What's all this legalese stuff?
What's all this constitution?
Whatever.
Come on.
Like, just hold it.
Wait, wait a second.
You know, the law clerks trying to be hip and cool and chic in writing an opinion that has been widely derided around the legal world.
Robert, you know that's a meme, right?
Hold up.
Wait a second.
Yeah, I know.
You know, it's in her case.
She wrote it.
It's in her dissent.
I didn't know, but I read it.
She put it in the dissent.
She said, hold on.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
That, that, that.
I was like, you got to be kidding me.
You can't let those little Yale law grants start to actually write opinions for you, Justice Jackson.
Robert, we got to, we'll start off with the elephant in the room, which is going to be the miraculous, apparently temp, at least what's worth temporarily, touchwood ceasefire in the Middle East.
And I've been, I don't, I don't care to respond to trolls on the internet, but every now and again, it's not a question of responding to trolls.
It's a question of making people understand that you don't determine the risks of a course of action based on the outcome alone.
And to say you had faith in the outcome and therefore anybody who raised legitimate concerns overreacted is basically ex post facto Russian roulette thinking.
Well, I bet on black and it was black, therefore there was no risk in betting on black.
The other thing that I wanted to say, I was going to say about this, is that there's an element of chance, there's an element of risk in everything that went down.
We're going to do the analysis now because there seems to be a ceasefire in the Middle East involving Iran and Israel.
People are saying that's how badly Iran was pummeled.
They had to come to the table.
And I don't want to get into any more fights than I have to on the internet, but I flip around and say, well, Israel came to the table too.
So did they get pummeled?
If both parties come to the table, do you fault one or say it had to be because of devastating sanctions or military strikes against one?
There was one thing I was just, I just lost my train of thought.
Oh, no, sorry.
And then the fatwa that seems to be called, but who the hell knows who's in charge in Iran?
And there's always been a fatwa from what I understand.
Ceasefire, at least temporarily being respected.
Robert, you voiced legitimate, in my view, sincere concerns.
For anybody who says he overreacted because it ended well, I'll say, for since we're going like religious on it, it ended well because he voiced his concerns.
So let's, let's, I'll flip it around on its head.
But Robert, what is your take of what happened in the last week and where it goes forward from here?
Well, we'll probably, you know, we may never fully know the whole backstory.
Maybe 10 years from now, 20 years from now, you know, different stories will leak out so that we can pierce together, piece together what took place.
There was obviously a move by Mark Levin and other, and there's been now interviews by Israeli generals saying what their plan was that was a regime change operation that was not what President Trump was focused on, which was nuclear disarmament, which he associated with the capacity to enrich uranium to a above the 3.5% or enrich it at all.
So when we last did the show on Sunday, Trump had put out that regime change tweet that got a lot of, I think it was one of the most negative reactions, most replies he's almost ever got on any truth.
So to the degree he was testing out the court of public opinion, I think his voters, making it clear to them that that is not what they had signed up for, I think was helpful to his decision-making process.
Then I think what you saw going on Monday morning, you saw a range of things that we had talked about.
So the, you know, people, some people like, oh, Barnes must have lost a lot of money on this.
It was actually just the opposite.
The two picks that we had put out at sportspicks.locals.com was that there would be an attack that weekend at eight to one odds.
That those people, You know, however, you feel about betting on those things, they did quite well with that prediction.
And that we would have a ceasefire before the end of July.
Put that out at five to one, got both.
So, you know, in terms of what we thought would happen, did in fact happen, which was ultimately, I think, a good outcome if as long as we don't get dragged back into it.
You look at what happened on Monday morning, and you could put together some tea leaves that, first of all, Iran started talking about closing off the Straits of Hormuz.
You know that, and then we can talk about China in this regard.
There was an effort to reach out to China.
There was an assumption in the State Department, appears, that China would never go along with Iran closing off the Straits of Hormuz because they depend so much on Iranian oil.
But no such statement was forthcoming from China.
It's probably not a coincidence that a trade deal was signed the very next day.
It looks like China leveraged the Iranian situation along with its near monopoly on the production of rare earths to get us to lower our demand because now basically the tariffs are only slightly higher than they were before all this started, about a 30% tariff.
And we're back to giving them a whole bunch of electronic stuff that we, you know, chips and other things that we had said we weren't going to do, apparently, as part of the deal.
So, but I think that the State Department's prediction of how China would react was mistaken.
And instead, China used it as an opportunity to leverage a better trade deal.
At the same time, the Iranian foreign affairs minister was in Moscow meeting with Putin.
Putin had some brief statements that were published.
And then, unlike most meetings that take place, there was no further readout from the Russian embassy about what the rest of that conversation was.
Not long after that conversation is when suddenly ceasefire talks commence.
Now, you can tell this by watching Trump's own reaction on his truth feed.
He started off the morning complaining about oil.
So obviously the straight to removes was bothering him.
He's like, drill, baby, drill.
We got to do it now.
We shouldn't be, you know, the so he was concerned about how that could backfire on him.
And this was concerns that some of us in the, you know, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, those of us that did not want a regime change in operation in Iran, didn't want us involved in a war in Iran, were warning that this was one of the dangerous potential risks that Trump faced was the economy blowing up right as he was trying to get his big beautiful bill through, which we'll also be discussing.
I think the big beautiful bill.
Robert, hold on.
Did your mic just go wonky?
I don't think so.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you now.
Sorry.
I think it went wonky for a second, but maybe it was just me.
Sorry, go ahead.
No problem.
The little big, beautiful bill outing.
But that's when all of a sudden, so Trump's talking about oil, and then he was talking about something else that happened over the weekend after the attack, which was Medvedev, the former president of Russia, who's tight with Putin, considered a potential successor, still has a lot of influence, but he's kind of like, he barks loud, is kind of his role, if you will.
He put out why he thought the effort had failed.
And in particular, he said other nuclear-armed countries are now going to provide their nuclear armaments, nuclear weapons to Iran.
So pause it there because that was suggested.
And I was thinking, it's either a joke or a troll.
Or, I mean, was there an element of serious?
No, given it was Medvedev.
And you know that Trump was paying attention to it because once again, Trump truthed about it.
Put out a truth post.
What is this about?
What is this about?
So what you saw was, I think, you know, there were some suggestions within the pro-war side that the Iran wouldn't close the straits of Hormuz, that China wouldn't get involved, that Russia wouldn't get involved.
Well, all those things were going the opposite direction on Monday morning.
And I think President Trump, to his credit, recognized that these risks were coming to fruition and that what he had been advised by some people in the State Department and others was not coming to fruition and that this could easily get out of hand and could get out of hand fast.
At the same time, Israel was losing in its war of attrition because the missiles were coming through at a much higher rate than had been suggested beforehand.
And so Israel then wanted a ceasefire of its own, for its own accord, because it needed time at least to step back from everything.
And I think now you can tell that the regime change, neocon apparatus, the deep state apparatus, thought that Trump was really going to go through with regime change.
And how do you know that?
By various statements that they were making, Washington Post stories that came out Monday morning, New York Times stories about how that would look, how the evasion would look, how the attack would look, so on and so forth.
And so the Israeli defense minister has come out and admitted that they were trying to find the Ayatollah to kill him and that they were just being unsuccessful in doing so, that they didn't care what Trump said.
They were going to go forward with it anyway.
So this could easily get out of control fast.
By that point, Trump had heard from his base that was not happy with the idea of a regime change conflict, that Trump had seen what the Russia was stepping in and stepping up.
China was stepping in and stepping up in ways that were counterproductive for their agenda.
And he's like, this could get out of hand fast.
And to Trump's credit, immediately got on the phone with the Qataris and said, I can get Israel with a ceasefire.
Can you get Iran with a ceasefire?
And Iranians said yes.
Together and agreed to have a very light for show attack on a U.S. base in Qatar that was empty, that we were given advance notice of the attack.
And that's it.
And hopefully that's where it stays.
The big question is, does it stay there?
Long-term impact on nuclear nonproliferation will be an ongoing debate.
Whether it was a wise attack or not will be an ongoing debate.
But as long as President Trump keeps us out from these Middle Eastern ongoing conflicts and other wars, then it will be an achievement rather than a detriment for him.
I mean, he made the right decision at the right time when it was clear that the negative signs were coming in of how this could easily get out of hand and that his own base had no interest in a regime change war.
That's when he made the right decision or even published these published statements saying don't attack Israel was very critical.
Use the F word.
You could actually bet on that, by the way, whether Trump would use the F word this month.
And he did in an interview.
You can see the little baby version.
They got a baby meme version of Trump doing it, which is even funnier.
But clearly, he realized he had to hem Israel in Quickly because this was not working as regime change.
I don't think Trump ever had any real interest in regime change.
Some would say that maybe he put that truth out simply to motivate the Iranians to come to the table on a ceasefire, or he did it to test out what his audience thought and felt about the issue.
But either way, and then here's how you really know that the regime change was going to happen, or they thought it would happen, the neocon, the deep state apparatus.
Lindsey Graham had prepared for his lecture of a lifetime, his Winston Churchill moment, his Abraham Lincoln moment, by going to the Senate floor with his big plan of why we have to go in there and why we have to do it and why regime change is required.
And he had his big little boards and his little demonstratives, as we say in the courtroom.
And right as he stepped off the stage, he finds out that Trump did a ceasefire anyway.
Mark Levin was screaming and yelling and hooting and hollering.
We can't do this.
We can't let them out.
Trump didn't care.
Trump was done.
Trump was finished.
Trump was out.
They also were probably behind the leaks, claiming that the effort was unsuccessful.
We probably won't ever fully know how successful it was or wasn't.
But Trump recognized right away that was an effort to continue the conflict by saying, oh, you didn't destroy anything.
You didn't hit anything.
They already moved everything.
It's going to come right back.
Trump immediately quashed that.
He's like, I don't care.
You're insulting pilots.
You're insulting America.
So on and so forth.
I'm not going to tolerate that suggestion, which means that effort to gin up the conflict all over again is dead, at least for Trump.
So the key for Trump on a go-forward basis is to keep us out of any ongoing or continuous conflict and not get dragged into this again.
And we'll see if ultimately he's successful in that regard.
So I pulled up a comment that said Tucker, Candace, Alex, someone else, oh, Bannon.
I don't know if Bannon was in there, damaged themselves through this.
I tend to disagree entirely.
They establish their credibility as independent.
They're going to give you their honest opinions regardless.
Now, Candace Owens got more credibility out of this, to be honest.
And I don't think she warranted such credibility.
I think she's a grifter, and I've said so for a while.
I think she's the queen of the grifters.
Now, I don't agree with anybody criticizing Tucker Carlson on those grounds.
Tucker disclosed this week that Fox News and the Murdoch had given him, promised him a fully funded, fully backed presidential campaign if he'd run against Donald Trump, and he refused.
Tucker has shown his loyalty over and over again to his personal detriment.
The same with Steve Bannon.
This is a man who went to prison defending the loyalty of President Trump.
Did that do that?
I don't think he did do that, did he?
When people say, who cares what Bannon thinks?
And I'm like, and I say, first of all, the man went to jail.
If you want to be in that tiny little portion that nobody cares about, that will never have power in the rest of the country, have at it.
Join your little, small, little bubble, and you can pretend that you are all of the country.
You can pretend you're a majority of the country, but these people are delusional.
And these are the people who were trying to talk Trump into a regime change war.
That would have been a disaster, unmitigated disaster.
Credit to President Trump, who recognized it as soon as the warning sign started to flare.
With his audience pushing back, Russia getting involved, China getting involved.
These things told him, you know, Israel bleeding out and it's a war of attrition.
He reckoned, okay, the best things to get out of this.
I was only into this to deter nuclear weapons anyway.
I wasn't in this for regime change, really.
He just spoken out against that in the Middle East just a month before in Saudi Arabia.
So I think Trump made the right decision, but the loyal people who are loyal to MAGA, loyal to the country, and loyal to the president, all three, and managed to balance those loyalties out without sacrificing one for the other is Tucker Carlson and Steve Bent.
They did themselves well.
They did themselves well in terms of the interest of the country and the best interest of the American people.
So I think the libertarian portion of his base is going to be disappointed.
They're disappointed with a lot of stuff anyway.
So that vote's going to bleed out probably for him.
I don't think he net added votes with this.
I think he net detracted votes.
But it probably did help the commie candidate for mayor of New York because they voted while this conflict was flaring up and it was probably enough to push him over the top and to knock Cuomo out of being the Democratic nominee.
Hold on.
Before we get there, Robert, the one thing I was going to say is I would say maybe the people who, I say not lose credibility, but who made points that were incorrect from the get-go is that, you know, America is Israel's bitch, to put it crassly, like some people are saying.
You know, I can understand people saying, well, maybe America is being dragged into conflict as a result of Netanyahu's zealous aspirations for regime change in Iran, but I've never heard a president talk to or about Israel the way Trump did.
And I've got nothing, you know, nothing for, nothing against, just as a pure matter of fact, to hear Trump say, I'm mad at Israel.
Like, it was at a moment where he didn't have to single out Israel because he could have said Iran's violating the ceasefire.
He said, Israel's doing it.
They don't know what the F they're doing.
And I had never heard anybody really put Netanyahu in his place like that.
And to me, it really confirmed the idea that Netanyahu was trying to drag America into this regime change conflict through its intempestuous or preemptive strikes.
And Trump said, this is how it's going to end, Israel.
And if you don't come to the table, you're on your own and Godspeed and God bless.
What do you say about that interpretation of these events?
Oh, I think that's absolutely right.
So I think that now he's trying to bail out Bibi from his other legal troubles that to a degree, you know, Bibi or others may have thought a continued conflict with Iran would delay those trials.
And so I think that's part of the reason why he's, you know, people have been critical of some of his very, very pro-Bib Netanyahu statements concerning these trials, but I think it's payback in part because he shut down the effort to have this war continue.
He shut down the effort to make it a regime change war.
And so I think that now he still may be a little bit naive about where he thinks certain things are going to develop from here, but we'll see.
I mean, he was talking about Iran joining the Abraham Accords and things like that.
That's not on the eve of happening, I don't think.
But we'll see.
But I think he, but when push came to shove, he did listen to his audience.
He did listen to his voters that Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson were consistently relaying the message, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others as well.
But on top of that, And people on truth, and people, the Richard Barris was influential in this regard.
Others were just laying out all the risks.
And the problem was the people pushing regime change were mitigating the risks and elevating the promises of success.
And their promises of success were overstated, and their statements of risk were understated.
And as he saw those of us who were warning about the risk, saw those risks start to come to fruition in lifetime.
The great credit to Trump is when he acts on his instincts, he tends to make very good decisions.
When he goes away from his instincts is when he makes poor decisions.
And here, when he was pushed, came to shove, he let his instincts take over.
People like Vice President Vance were advancing this position from day one.
He's trying to create an intellectual architecture from the nature of the attack to say, here's a manageable policy on a go-forward basis, which is to have limited goals and objectives, and then to get out once those limited goals and objectives are reached.
And I think Vance handled himself very well in this context.
Once Trump had made the decision to attack, he made sure it was targeted and tailored just to the nuclear facilities.
And then we would get out as soon as we could.
And that when the risk started to mount, and Trump saw that those of us warning about the risk were right, then he made, he operated on his instincts, made the right decision to get us out.
And Netanyahu, and it'll still be no greater, well, there might be greater, but no sweeter moments than the fact that Lindsey Graham walked off that Senate floor, thinking he was walking out to a hero's welcome and the announcement of another Turchillian war to be told the war is already over, pal.
So that was a sweet moment for a comeuppance for the nutty neocons.
And hopefully we don't get back here during the rest of Trump's term to have to worry about this.
Touchwood, Robert.
Encryptus is sending me screen grabs of the super chats on CommiTube.
I can't bring them up because it doesn't come up through Rumble Studio.
Islamic grooming gangs are in the U.S. in Patterson, New Jersey, Dearborn, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
They've been here since 2012.
No one cares about it.
And that was from Mark Guidetti, 30801 or 3081.
And then Leolu, Leo love this domino.
It says, the U.S. Senate has unconditional parliamentarian, unconstitutional parliamentarian that changed the big, beautiful bill.
I thought it was the lawmakers that are supposed to write the bill in theory.
We're going to get to there in a second.
So, okay, Middle East looks like it's settled down for the time.
Momentarily calm.
I mean, I don't know, man.
Trump is wanting Israel to do a ceasefire in Gaza.
We'll see if that happens.
He wants it done within a week or two.
He has called for the courts to not continue to conduct hearings with Bibi, Netanyahu at this time.
He has publicly stated he sees them as weaponized lawfare against Bibi.
I watched a documentary on this just to prep for the show today, actually, because I was curious about it.
I always recommend people on topics related to Israel.
If you want an Israeli sympathetic but not Israeli sycophantic perspective, in other words, you want something that's geopolitically realistic but doesn't sound like Benji Shapiro, then Elon Holkoer, one of our locals board members, often posts on our locals community a lot of updates, links, very good with citations, but also has a substack, H-U-L-K-O-W-E-R, that I recommend.
And he probably, I'm sure he does know more about this than I do.
But from the documentary, it looks like, you know, BB likes cigars.
I mean, apparently he likes cigars more than I do.
His cigar habits are apparently more expensive than mine.
I was like, whew, that's pricey, Bibi.
And apparently the wife likes the champagne.
She likes a certain kind of champagne.
So apparently for the last 20 years or so, a lot of people who want to influence in Israel have been giving him gifts of cigars and giving her gifts of champagne bottles.
And apparently she's not known as the nicest person with staff.
It's always a bad idea, folks.
Don't be cheap with how you tip.
I had a client that was that way in Switzerland.
He would never tip anybody.
He would never tip the limo driver or anybody else.
So I was able to prove to him the problematic nature of that by simply going to the very, I could get any negative intel on my own client that I wanted, which meant the government could get it as well, because all these people were ticked off that he never tipped them.
But apparently she's not known as all that kind of a person to work for.
And so all kinds, you know, housekeepers, babysitters, private security, they're all yipping, yipping, yipping about anything they say.
So they did seem to have a pretty open and shut case under what I understand.
And again, this is limited under Israeli law.
My understanding is that basically you're prohibited when you're in public office from taking gifts, period.
They don't have the kind of execut, like here in the U.S. for a federal judge.
It's $5,000?
Under $25, or it has to be disclosed under certain circumstances and all this kind of thing.
And it appears that, you know, they weren't big on the disclosure there with the BB family.
So, I mean, they have a case.
Some people could say it's kind of a pick-and-in-ny case.
You know, it's like, what, you know, is our cigars and champagne really worth taking out the prime minister?
Though I would note that for lesser things, other people have gone to jail that are government officials in Israel because they're kind of fastidious about this, it appears.
But they kind of had him dead to rights.
So Trump intervening on his behalf apparently has worked because it appears the Israeli court is now suspending things because Trump elevated.
First, he said it's terrible, it's tragic, it's horrific, but nothing was happening.
So then he put out a truth that said, you know, we are Israel's biggest funder.
Nobody gives more money to Israel than the United States.
And he goes, maybe it's time for me to reconsider that if they're going to put BB in jail.
So all of a sudden, the Israeli court decided, well, you know, maybe we can postpone these proceedings a little longer as long as the checks are still incoming.
So I think Trump's doing what he can to avoid this conflict escalating in an uncontrollable manner while at the same time trying to minimize whatever Netanyahu's going to do and try to main, I think he feels he has more leverage with Netanyahu than he would a subsequent Israeli leader to get no further attacks on Iran and to not get a breach of the ceasefire.
Hold on.
Your mic went out again, Robert.
Oh, really?
Okay, now it's back.
Well, something's going on, but okay, sorry.
Carrie.
Yeah, no problem.
So the end to try to get a ceasefire is how I read it.
I don't see it as Trump is.
Some people think that he is really deferential to Netanyahu.
That isn't my take on him.
I think he did believe the intelligence that Massad relayed through John Ratcliffe, our CIA director.
I don't think Ratcliffe did a good job in this context because it appears to me that JD Vance had to go outside of the conventional, inside the administration.
He had to go outside of the official administration to get independent perspectives.
And some of those independent perspectives, he had never heard before, according to various things that I've heard.
So that shows that the State Department's still not doing a great.
Our administrative machinery, the deep state machinery at the Pentagon and at the State Department is still very weak.
They don't do that.
There's too much neocon, neoliberal influence, too much Mossad and Israeli influence that doesn't honestly put out, here's your risk.
Here's the real probabilities of those risks.
Here's the rewards.
Here's the real probability of those rewards.
I think they don't do honest calculations.
We watched The Fog of War a couple of weeks ago.
Watched Naked Gun this past weekend, which was more of a relaxing film.
Yeah, we got to get some of those.
We need these.
Yeah, we got to get the put them up at 1776lawcenter.com and BibaFry.com so people can get some of these.
These are great from our great board members.
So I think Trump made the right decision in the end in terms of getting out of this, not escalating it, getting everybody to chill, to relax a little bit, and hopefully he's able to sustain that.
There's some who doubt he can sustain it due to the nature of the underlying nature of the conflict, the neocon interest in extending war.
NATO was busy kissing up to him, hoping he will send more arms to Ukraine.
I don't think he has any interest in doing that.
And I don't think it's in America's interest that he do that.
So now he got to shift back to the big, beautiful bill.
It looks like it will finally eke through.
It did eke through the Senate.
We can get through some details on that.
But those of us who are concerned, we're right to be concerned.
And I think everybody who spoke out did so rightly.
And I think you had an influence.
For any of you out there, you may think you're just an ordinary person that has three people that like your tweet.
All of it collectively and aggregately matters.
They wouldn't be censoring your opinion if your opinion didn't matter.
Let me read a bunch of the chats here because some of them are on point or at least on topic.
The Minister of Defense of Israel, Israeli Katz, Israel Katz, said in an interview they absolutely wanted to kill Ali Khomeini, but they just lost track of him.
Why do we support these reckless allies?
Gorgeous meetings.
Apparently the Washington Post confirmed that it was a Mossad operation to call Iranian, high-ranking Iranian officials and tell them that if they didn't abandon Iran, that their wife and children were going to be murdered.
That's really appropriate behavior of any government.
And I don't find that okay or acceptable at all.
Well, the funny thing is I saw Nick Fuentes mention that on Alex Jones.
I'm like, okay, I'll take it with a grain of salt.
I still take Washington Post with a grain of salt, but all's fair and love and war, peeps, right?
So why not break some international law, allegedly?
Gorgeous mayhem says, hey, Barnes, Len Sherman of Columbia U and Oxford did studies showing the extent to which Uber is screwing their drivers over.
Can anything be done about this?
Hold on.
Freddie65 says, our NGO is kicking off in Serbia again.
And then we've got Biltong, which I ate on the way up here today.
Taste our authentic Angus and Wagyu beef.
Biltong, premium air-dried with bold, savory flavors.
Biltong is a high-protein, low-carb snack.
Order now at Biltongusa.com.
Use code BARNS for 10% off.
And then in our local community, just a quick one because it was on point also.
What about the new drone strikes in Iran today?
I hadn't heard about this.
Were there strikes today?
I'm unaware of any.
I was Googling in strikes on Lebanon.
I mean, there's still going to be conflict, unfortunately.
I mean, hopefully that there does become a ceasefire in Gaza.
That's been going on now for 18 months.
Gaza's mostly razed to the ground at this point.
It appears to me.
I don't think that was worth the PR public opinion damage that was done, but we'll see with time.
Syria is still an unmanageable country.
I follow a lot of these people that do travel vlogs, and one of them is called Bald and Bankrupt, which is kind of a funny name.
He goes all over the place.
He was able to walk into Syria a month ago because there's just no real controls there.
So the Assad government has fallen, but the new leader that we're trying to prop up, who, by the way, was on our FBI most wanted list a year ago with a $10 million bounty on his head, and now we're taking off sanctions and shaking his hand and hoping he joins the Abraham Accords.
He's never been elected to power.
You just have this guy that was the default winner of Assad fleeing because all the generals decided to take bribes instead.
So there's hopes of Syria joining Abraham Accords.
I don't know what that would actually mean, but what you really have is you have the Turks and the Israelis fighting over parts of control over Syria.
So that's probably going to keep going.
Same with Lebanon.
We'll see what happens in Gaza.
So it's not going to be the world of peace anytime super soon.
It's just hopefully the U.S. can stay out of getting us deeply involved in ways that could be very counterproductive for America's own interest.
All wars are bankers war.
Smedley Butler from Bob Hunter, Paul Wilson.
Do either of you have any concerns about Great Britain falling like the city of London becoming as irrelevant as possible in the world of public affairs?
Robert, let's get to the big beautiful bill because that was the other news of the day that what's his name?
North Carolina?
South Carolina?
North Carolina.
The deep state hack, that big pharma whore, is going.
I knew he was probably going to step down as soon as he voted against the big beautiful bill.
So he votes against it.
Where does Thomas Massey stand on the big bill now?
Oh, he totally, he thinks it's even worse than what it was in the House.
So we'll give, well, first we'll give Trump's perspective, then give where the critics are coming from, and then what people can kind of expect.
And if you can, also, the differences between the OBB before it went, I don't know, for review and now coming back, it's had some changes.
The AI provisions are still in it, right?
As far as I understand?
To my knowledge, yes.
And the AI provisions are that which prevents States from enacting AI laws for 10 years following the passage of this bill.
Okay, sorry, that's the parenthesis.
All the institutional hacks in the Senate were trying to get the parliamentarian to take out all the things they didn't want to vote on.
That was a pure red herring.
The parliamentarian doesn't have that authority, final binding authority of any such kind.
They were just wanting some unelected person they could blame on why the law changed.
That's all that ever was.
That was a big show for a bunch of hacks in the Senate who wanted to gut most of Trump's spending cuts is what they wanted to do.
Now, the reason why Trump is for this is twofold.
I should say threefold.
First, he needs the tax cuts made permanent or at least extended, the ones he passed in 2017.
Otherwise, a massive tax hike was incoming.
This is the reason why over at SportsPicks, I said this bill will pass in some meaningful form by the end of July.
They were saying the odds were maybe in August, maybe it never passed.
There's no way they're going to allow the taxes to go spike right back up to 2016 rates again.
So that's one of the key things for Trump was getting that extended.
Why does that happen that taxes go up?
And at what level?
Passed Trump's bill.
They made it temporary.
It only was for five years, and then it was going to go back to the old rates unless those rates were extended.
And only now under Trump is the opportunity to extend them.
Biden was not in favor of extending them.
So he didn't get rid of them during his term, but he didn't want to extend them either.
And so it was up to Trump to get him extended.
Otherwise, everybody was going to face a massive tax hike.
I mean, this is why the big beautiful bill, that part of it had to pass or Republicans were in deep trouble because all of a sudden everybody gets a massive tax hike.
They don't expect that with Trump being president.
So that was priority one.
Priority two was massive increase in immigration enforcement.
Even some of the Defense Department budget is actually for immigration enforcement.
So you're talking about massive.
You're talking about $150 billion plus.
I mean, it's huge amounts of money to really make possible the manpower needed to actually enforce his intention of deporting illegal immigrants, particularly those that are criminals or dangerous or have gang affiliations or already been ordered removed and those high priority ones.
And so, and that was already working.
It already got over.
He'd stopped the bleeding at the border.
People had stopped coming across in major numbers.
He'd got a million people or so to self-deport.
Those people exiting the workplace led to real wage increases.
In other words, wage increases above the cost of living and above the customer price index and real job gains for Native-born American workers, first time since the last time President Trump was president.
So he needs that money to make that possible, to finish the wall and to get the law enforcement authority and the law enforcement personnel that are needed, given that they're even strapped even more now when there's protests and riots wherever they're going to try to enforce the law, where there's all these saboteurs in sanctuary cities.
So they really needed up their personnel.
That was the second key component for Trump.
The third key component is part of his industrial policy.
This part has been kind of overlooked a lot.
So a key part for Trump is tariffs are just one part of his industrial policy.
The second part is giving major incentives for people to invest here and particularly to develop factories that manufacture real goods, high-end goods.
So part of this he's doing with the AI.
Part of this he's doing through crypto legislation that's separate the Stable Act, the Genius Act, et cetera, stablecoin laws, the Genius Act laws, clarity law, et cetera.
But another big part was creating all these tax benefits if you build factories right here in America.
And he needed that in now because then people could use that as part of their investing decision making.
So those three components were critical for Trump.
And those are the three components that are still in the bill.
Now, other aspects were of secondary significance to Trump, but most of them are still in the bill.
This includes no tax on tips.
Now they've watered it down, so we'll see what it ultimately ends up being.
How much of a no, there's at least some portion of a no tax on tips being passed.
It's not clear how much they've diluted it.
What do you make of the argument?
Because there are people out there objecting to the no tax on tips, saying it penalizes people who are making similar amounts of money in non-hospitality industries.
I'm for less taxes, period.
So, you know, if it's less taxes, good.
You know, the argument that, hey, this person over here is still getting screwed is no argument for still screwing this person over there.
You know what I mean?
So that's my take.
And I think it's most voters take.
That's an incredibly popular position that he made, particularly amongst working class Americans and younger working class Americans, especially.
Remember, that was where his big inroads, Pew Research did a big data dump that had voter-validated survey evidence about who swung the election.
And of course, if you've been watching Richard Barris and I, you would have been able to predict what that report said last week, this week.
You would have predicted it two years ago because those exact constituencies, millennials and Zoomers, minority millennials and Zoomers, especially, shifting in mass amongst working class voters.
No tax on tips is great for that group.
No tax on overtime is great for that group.
Now, once again, you leave it up to the rogue senators because the people that get tips don't make big donations, because the people who make work overtime don't make big donations.
The senators don't care about them.
And only because of Trump's publicly campaigning on it and efforts to push them, has there been any tax relief in that capacity?
But there again, they watered it down and convoluted it.
So I will have to look at the final language.
The clerk had to read it for 16 hours straight because Schumer wanted to, doesn't want Trump to get the bill on July 4th.
So before July 4th, which was what he wanted.
You know, it's just, you know, it shows you how petty Schumer is.
But there is at least some tax relief for people who get tips, some tax relief for people who get overtime, and some tax relief for both families and for people who receive Social Security.
It's not precisely what Trump wanted, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
So for Trump, and then the last but not least was reducing, what happens is a lot of states extend Medicaid, the state version of Medicaid, to illegals.
And this was a, and so the bill included some penalties in effect, that you're going to get less money for your Medicaid program if You continue to provide state subsidies to illegals.
It's not clear, at least some of those cuts are still there, but it's not clear how much because they were trying to gut it all.
They were using the parliamentarian to say that a rule required that that cut not be included.
Apparently, most of it is back in.
Not crystal clear, though.
They were supposed to finally cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
Not clear if that's still in the bill or not, the final one.
I didn't sit there and listen for the 16 hours that it was being read in the Senate.
So we'll see.
And we'll also see if there's any, you know, the House has got to be sort of up or down on this vote in order for it to go up to the president.
I think Mike Johnson has enough discipline to do so.
It barely passed last time.
Massey will still be a no.
He doesn't, I'll get to why the libertarians don't like the bill.
Elon Musk is a strong no and some others.
Rand Paul remained a no.
Initially in the Senate, the only people who joined were Tom Tillis and Ron Johnson with Rand Paul.
All the other Republicans stayed in line and voted for it.
There had been rumors and ruminations that Lindsey Graham and others were not going to allow the bill to get to the floor to get through unless Trump delivered on some sort of attack on Iran.
Trump is, whether that's the case or not, we'll never know, but the timing sure does look interesting from just a speculative perspective, whether they were trying to hijack the bill for those purposes.
Hold up.
Go ahead.
Let your audio catch up.
I think something's happening where your audio, it goes wonky, but now it catches back up.
I'm sorry.
I just wanted to stop you.
I think it's gone.
So, you know, that happened the other day.
There was an internet thing where I think I was watching myself and I could hear myself before my lips were moving.
Well, no, it seems to me like I see it.
I hear it happening.
And then I'll take the opportunity right now anyhow to bring up a $10 super chat.
Iran's had thousands of years of teaching killing Saturday people, then Sunday people.
They are nuts.
You can't let them have a nuke.
They will use it.
Trump was right to stop them.
Okay.
Not getting back into it, but sorry, go on with the one big beautiful business.
The assumption that they would use nuclear weapons is that they're irrational and that they, because if they were to use nuclear weapons, they would be wiped off the face of the earth with a nuclear counterattack.
So the assumption is that they don't care about that.
And the problem with that is if that's the case, then they wouldn't have stood down in the way they did.
And it's not to defend Iran and there's no but.
Clearly something else is going on because it's not as irrational as some people prepare.
And they've got 15,000 Jews living in Iran.
It's got the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel in the Middle East.
And if they want it to be genocidal, they have a captured audience to do that.
Sorry, sorry.
I think most people who evaluate it think they want nuclear weapons as a deterrent to be able to continue to do what they do.
The main criticism of the original Iranian deal wasn't the deterrent factor.
It was that Iran was using the funds that were released to them to fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
And that the net effect of that was that it led to October 7th.
That's the criticism of the Obama deal.
For the most part, there were some other criticism too, but we'll see how all that turns out in the end.
But so now, so for Trump, this gets him 90% of what he wants.
And he gets him what he has to have.
And that's why most of the Republicans were going to be on board.
Ron Johnson originally voted no, and that's why J.D. Vance was coming down and looked like Vance was going to have to break the tie.
Johnson swung his vote back in favor of the Trump bill.
Ron Johnson is an old budget hawk.
And so for budget hawks, they want to get the budget under control.
To them, the public debt is the primary factor that we should be focused on.
Johnson ultimately backed down at the president's urging because he's on the Trump agenda in general.
But he was like, it would be nice if we someday get reduction in the debt.
Now, Rand Paul's always been against the debt being increased.
He was going to be a likely no vote all along.
And so no surprise there.
Some people criticize him for grandstanding.
Well, you know, however you want to do it, he's had the same principled position for forever.
Same with Thomas Massey.
He's from the libertarian perspective.
Tom Tillis was a surprise.
I mean, because he's not a committed libertarian at all.
So that told me that he didn't plan on running.
And it was just almost an act of spite to, now he, the North Carolina political establishment hates Trump.
They were the ones who sabotaged the African-American Republican candidate for governor.
It was the Republican establishment in North Carolina who did so.
So, you know, Tillis has always been a deep state hack.
But so not sure what suddenly motivated him to be against it.
But for Elon Musk and for the libertarian writ large, they're more deficit focused.
I think what Elon Musk wanted was a Argentinian Malay style take a chainsaw.
Exactly.
And I think that the net effect of it was that once that did not, once he saw that was not going to occur, from Trump's perspective, he's growth driven.
So Trump looks at it as how do we grow?
He wants to, we can reduce the debt's share of GDP by growing the economy with targeted spending on illegal immigration enforcement and by increasing investment through tax relief to the American people.
So to Trump, he sees that's the best mechanism to deal with the debt, which he thinks most critically is about whether the debt is a share of GDP, not what it is in nominal terms.
And if you grow the GDP big enough, that debt increase isn't going to matter as much.
So that's how Trump sees tax cuts over deficit cuts.
He sees immigration enforcement over deficit cuts as the priority.
He sees coming up with ways to incentivize industrial investment in the United States as more important than cutting the deficit.
Elon comes from the libertarian school, and many of them, like Rand Paul, like Thomas Massey, they see the debt as more important.
They see the debt as more consequential.
So that's why they're going to vote the way they are.
That wing is not going to be happy, but every other wing he's managed to herd into support for the bill.
So the bill is going to pass.
It's going to pass in its current form in all likelihood.
And it likely is going to pass Rather sooner than people may think.
And Trump will get what he needs in terms of taxes, in terms of investments, in terms of tariffs, in terms of immigration enforcement.
And now, the libertarians will be unhappy, but they're unhappy on a range of policies anyway.
So that's shipping.
But he had a trade-off.
Often politics is binary choices.
It's not the ideal.
It's often this real option versus this real option, which have ugly undersides to it.
I think Steve Bannon put it, when they make this sausage, it's never pretty.
And that there will be a lot of this bill that we don't like and don't care for.
The other thing that Musk is agitated about is that the bill does, it looked at first like they were going to hide behind the parliamentarian to put back in all the Green New Deal subsidies.
They've taken those back out.
So Trump's for old energy, coal, natural gas, oil.
He thinks he's made fun of wind power for forever.
He goes, all those things they love to do is kill the birds.
And I remember, you know, going on, I remember with Rogan about the whales, you know, the, you know, about all these different things.
So he's a deep skeptic of all of that.
Obviously, Elon is deeply invested in all of that.
And so he sees this as a backward step because it's shifting from new energy to old energy.
And so that's the other reason.
So he'll be strongly opposed.
He'd been quiet for a couple of weeks.
He'll lead the criticisms of it.
But at this point, there aren't a lot of true budget hawks or libertarians in the House or the Senate, representative power.
They represent about 1% to 2% of the country.
And I think it's just the reality that Trump was always going to make this choice.
And I think Elon probably convinced himself that Trump was going to do – It's debt and it matters to a degree, but not like it would be if you're in the private sector.
It's like we're playing a monopoly game and you want me to borrow a thousand, I need to borrow $1,000, but I can print my own money.
That's not the same as private sector debt.
Now, there's a good number of Austrian economics and libertarian budget hawk-oriented personalities.
Green eyeshade is the way James Carville and Paul Begala used to make fun of them.
They called Leon Panetta, the green eyeshade guy who was always obsessed with a deficit.
That's why James Carville once joked, when I come back, when I'm dead and I come back as something else, I want to come back as the bond market because they run everything.
That's what that, so this is an old debate dating back to the 90s.
And Trump's made a growth-oriented choice.
I happen to agree with it myself, but that's why the libertarians will continue to be opposed to it.
But the people that are like harshly bashing Rand Paul or Thomas Massey, I know Trump is going to waste a lot of money and effort trying to take Massey out of his House seat.
I'll be supporting Massey.
A lot of people around me will be supporting Massey.
Massey represents the same views he's always had.
Like there are people like, well, hey, Massey, why didn't you put in that War Powers Resolution Act when Obama or Biden was president?
He did.
He did it all the way through.
People have been paying attention.
So I don't think, you know, I would use my leverage a little differently than Massey and Paul have chosen to do.
That's been my criticism has been one and more of tactics.
But they're deeply principled men who have often been the only advocates.
They're some of our best advocates during COVID, Thomas Massey and Rand Paul.
Best advocates against war, Thomas Massey and Rand Paul.
Best advocates against the surveillance state, Thomas Massey and Rand Paul.
So I'll be on the Massey side, not the Trump side on that equation.
And I think you'll probably get an output never did become a senator from the state of Alabama.
You went out there for a second again, but two things.
So Trump said he's going to try to primary Tillis.
Tillis is not, or primary Heat in the next election.
Now he announced he's not going to run in the next.
When is that going to be?
That's going to be 2026?
Yeah, Massey's up right away.
Well, Massey's up every two years.
Tillis is up.
His term is up 2026.
So that'll be an open seat, and talk is that Lord Trump will run for it.
Okay, very cool.
How long is this beautiful bill in effect for?
Because I forget what the reconciliation bill.
How long is it?
Scotts are, it's unclear to me.
They're supposed to be made permanent.
Some other people are saying it's not really permanent.
It's five years or 10 years.
So that all they did is kick the can down the curb again.
I'm not sure if that's the case or not.
I haven't read the, I always wait to read the final, final bill when it's all put together.
I follow the debate to see what they're talking about being in and out.
But the goal is that once this, at a minimum, it's there for the rest of Trump's term.
So he doesn't have to fight all over again to get these tax cuts next time around.
Doesn't have to fight all over again to get the immigration funding he wants.
So the two big issues that he needs, along with his industrial policy component, are all going to be there and are going to stay locked in.
So on those side, Trump will have major success.
For those that were expecting major budget cuts or a really reduced deficit, that's unlikely to occur, honestly, in Trump's term.
I'm not sure what the person says.
He said he'd be primaried.
Viva always leaves this shit out.
I think that's what I was specifically mentioning, but set that aside.
Okay, so the OBB, when is the final vote?
It has to be done before July.
Well, they did the procedural vote, but it'll go right over to the House.
I don't know.
I think it could still get done this week.
I think it could still get passed this week because that's what Trump wanted.
He wanted it July 3rd.
So it could be like July 4th, Big Beautiful Bill passed the rest.
This is his signature domestic policy.
It looks like his crypto stuff will go through.
The Brooke Rollins Secretary of Agriculture has reached out about the Amos Miller case.
So maybe I think what I have recommended to people is for those libertarians disappointed by Trump's foreign policy or disappointed by the budgetary policy, you know, there's areas where there's a lot of alignment and food freedom, medical freedom, financial freedom, political freedom.
You know, Trump's delivering so far on censorship issues, delivering so far on trying to get rid of all these deep state agencies all over the place.
He's at least partially delivered with Doge.
Big Balls is still back in government despite the claim that he would be gone.
He's been reinstated.
I think Trump even retruthed that statement out.
So He's still committed to that aspect.
And I think if they can deliver on financial freedom, deliver on political freedom, on censorship-related issues, and then start adding, you know, Robert Kennedy is doing a lot of great work on medical freedom.
There's still more work to be done there.
But if Kennedy keeps progressing, that's a way to reach out to some of those voters.
Same with the on food freedom is the area where they're really missing at the moment.
And Brooke Rollins has started to step up, spoke out for the New Jersey farmer whose land they were trying to steal, shut down a rogue case that was out in South Dakota, has now reached out on the Amos Miller case.
So I'm hopeful that if she steps up, then she can heal some of those, she can rebuild some of the bridges to some of, because libertarians care about all those issues too.
So the and can build some bridges to rebuild it.
I think Elon's going to be so unhappy.
I'm not sure he's going to be engaged politically that much.
You might see him get involved in support of Thomas Massey, but we'll see.
That would probably be a smart political move of Elon because Massey's, the last time they tried to take Massey out, people forget Trump and Liz Cheney worked together in 2020 to try to get him beat because of his opposition to COVID interventions.
And he won by, I think, 80, I think he won 80% of the vote.
So good luck trying to take out Tommy.
And I'll say this, Chris LeCivita, who's a bottom-barrel scum who was involved with, who is a never-Trumper, who Trump manages to reward with big political consulting contracts continuously.
It baffles some of us.
But, you know, it's kind of like defending Netanyahu after Netanyahu ran away from him in the 2020 election contest.
But, you know, take it for what it is.
Sometimes Trump rewards the people that smack him and punishes the people that are loyal to him.
But, I mean, to make Massey your number one target is really idiotic, in my view.
All it does, I mean, you already have a constituency that's unhappy with you that was a key part of your coalition and you want to kick him in the face.
This is stupid politics, not smart politics, stupid politics.
And I predict he will get embarrassed in terms of how that's going to unfold.
So we'll see.
But, you know, Tom Tillis being gone from the Senate in 2027 is a net plus, no matter who replaces him.
Well, someone in the chat was floating that he might run for governor.
I don't know how Tom Tillis is really not well liked.
So I don't think he has the founding.
In North Carolina, like a lot of the South, you have a split between the establishment and the new voter base.
And the new voter base are all former Democrats, working class populist constituencies.
And they have no, and they've been changing.
The party's been changing just under the Trump era at an accelerated timetable.
And guys like Tillis don't understand it.
Remember Richard Burr, that other deep state hack who got away with doing insider trading was from North Carolina.
Tillis wouldn't be in the Senate but for Donald Trump carrying him across the line in 2020 in North Carolina.
So they thought he was dead in 2014.
They thought he was dead in 2020.
But in 2020, it was Trump that helped carry him across the line.
But he's not people voting for Trump that then voted Tillis down ballot.
So I think, but I think Laura Trump probably will run for the Senate in North Carolina and probably will be the next senator from North Carolina.
I think, and she'll be a dramatic improvement over Tom Tillis.
Someone in the chat asked, didn't Massey vote on, let me bring it up so I don't misquote it.
I'm trying to double check.
I don't think it's entirely accurate.
Didn't Massey vote for Biden's budget bill?
Here.
Didn't Massey vote for Biden's $7 trillion omnibus bill?
As far as I recall, it wasn't specifically voting on a bill that there would have been a choice for the votes.
Massey's been a button.
You're right.
There's all these procedural votes that, like, there are people that thought he voted against the Doge recision bill, and that was not it.
He was voting against a procedural aspect related to unrelated litigation.
That was part of it.
He voted for and pushed the Doge recision bill.
People pretending he's a grandstander are delusional.
They're delusional.
I get Trump wants to pitch that.
Trump is upset because Massey comes from a different part of the party that he's just ignoring.
I mean, to be blunt about it.
I mean, all Massey is saying about the bill, pretty close to what Elon Musk is saying about the bill, who spent a lot of money to help get Trump elected.
So the, you know, who went ballistic on Trump concerning the bill.
So I get that people that are locked into pro-Trump want to take his interpretation on everything.
Sometimes he's just dead wrong.
He was dead wrong when he pushed that establishment hack, Big Luther, to become senator in Alabama.
That led to Roy Moore getting nominated, which led to Roy Moore losing the seat.
If they would have backed Mo Brooks, which is what he should have done, Mo Brooks would be in the Senate today.
So it was just a tactically bad decision.
I mean, you could ask Richard Barricks.
Barris complains about this ceaselessly.
Trump makes terrible tactical decisions when it comes to endorsements.
He, frankly, always has.
He's just bad at it.
It's not his strength.
Let's put it that way.
When you think Lindsey Graham is better representative of MAGA than Thomas Massey, maybe you're the problem.
Someone pointed out in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community that Massey voted in favor of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023, which raised the debt ceiling under Biden.
So I don't know how you can reconcile that or argue that it makes him a hypocrite.
Well, he's voted for various aspects of Trump legislation that did so too as well.
It's not just that aspect that Massey's critical of.
Massey's critical of a whole bunch of things that should be in the bill that are not there and things that are in the bill that he thinks should not be there.
And he's made his criticisms consistently all the way through.
But he represents, you know, there's people that want to say, oh, somehow Massey's illegitimate for criticizing this.
Well, then why is Rand Paul doing it?
Why is Elon Musk doing it?
Why is pretty much every libertarian influencer doing it?
It's people who just don't want to.
I don't know if Barnes is frozen or if it's me about these things.
Wait, Robert, your internet went out at the worst possible time.
You said, well, if Massey's against it, why is Rand Paul?
I think, and then you froze out.
Oh, all the libertarians are pretty much against it.
That's just, again, they're budget hawks.
That's why Ron Johnson was initially against it.
So I don't happen to share their priorities, nor does President Trump, but treating it as some sort of, you know, as if only the other side somehow is dishonest or disingenuous.
This is an honest disagreement, a deep disagreement of policy.
That's what it is.
And I wish Trump would treat it as such rather than personalizing it and going after Massey.
Massey's done more work for small farmers than President Trump ever has by a long mile.
What is Trump busy doing?
He's busy helping making sure big corporate farmers can hire illegals because he's back on that plan again.
Before we get there, Robert, I know that you've heard the story, though we haven't spoken about it.
There was a recall of raw milk in Pennsylvania this week because it had whatever the freaking thing is there, Campy Bolobana.
I don't know what Campylobacter contamination.
And it's a specific company.
I thought for a second it was Amos Miller's Farms.
Had you heard about this story?
No, I had not.
Oh, well, then I guess it hasn't had an impact yet, potentially, but raw milk sold throughout southeastern Pennsylvania were called over contamination concerns.
The company was called raw milk that was sold in parts of southeastern and south central Pennsylvania has been recalled due to contamination concerns.
What's the Meadow Valley Jersey brand raw milk that has been purchased since April 1st?
Yada, the recall state officials said is due to milk testing positive for campy lobacter contamination.
I'm going to just double check what that was because now I thought it was something else.
But okay, if you hadn't heard about that, I was wondering if it had any negative impact.
I was looking just to see, you know, how many vegetables have been recalled, how many beef from massive foods.
I just watched a video about how Tyson Foods makes the chicken McNuggets.
And it's interesting.
But for all of the recalls of E. coli salmonella on farm products from big pharma, big farms, I was just wondering if this had any impact on your Pennsylvania case.
So Trump is back to talking about carving out amnesty provisions or not deporting illegals who are operating in the agriculture and hospitality industry.
Yep.
Yep.
He's back to it again.
So the, you know, he can't help himself in that regard.
So, and sooner or later, that's going to happen.
I mean, he's going to carve out exemptions.
It is what it is.
So the, but I mean, and that's where the big, beautiful bill mostly is big and beautiful from a Trumpian perspective.
I don't happen to share the budget hawks' priorities or the libertarians or the Austrian economics approach on this, but I have friends who do.
And that's what's like the fact they disagree with me, I don't take as a personal affront.
I mean, I get where Trump doesn't like Massey being so irascibly independent, but we need more of that.
We don't need less of it in Washington, especially.
The last thing we need are more lemmings.
We need more herons.
Robert, let's get into some of the other.
We got to get to the scope.
A lot of scope.
I know, no.
Scottish this week.
Big win president this week.
Let me do a couple of things first.
Just get a bunch of these out of the way.
T1990.
I can't read all of them, but basically two things I get GDP is a good litmus test for measurement tool growth.
So the guy who, okay, T190, do one big one and I'll read it more easily.
I root for Massey Paul, but they need to fight more after this current budget.
Need MAGA win right now.
Says NK telephone man.
I hate taxes.
I give taxes on income, stuff I buy, car I drive, death, life, whatever.
40% when you add it up.
BC McCormick says, sports picks, baby, got my orange on coach.
Tell him, Barnes, tell him, baby.
Keep going down here.
Let's see.
Schumer is a cock and has been Pelosi's bitch and her loyal lapdog for quite some time now.
Keep your Commonwealth immigrants in the Commonwealth, says MK Telephone Man.
Iran had that.
Okay, I got that.
We'll get to the locals one afterwards.
Before we even get to SCOTUS, Robert, quick one coming out of California.
Gavin Newsome is suing Fox News for $787 million.
And I'm reading the intro.
Fox News is living with the precedent that they set and the damage they've done to themselves because the lawsuit tells a good story.
I realize why I have a headache.
It's because of my freaking lip and tongue.
The lawsuit describes how Fox News, you know, on the eve of trial with the Dominion voting, agreed to pay $787 million because it was revealed through discovery that they are the propaganda arm of the Trump administration.
Even though I think they've been very unfavorable to Trump, many of us think they've been pretty unfair to him, you know, 2020-ish.
See, it tells the story that Tucker Carlson disclosed, tried to sabotage and prevent President Trump from getting re-elected by not only blacklisting him between 20 and 2020 and 2024 in terms of ad network access, but they tried to recruit Tucker Carlson to run against him in a vanity project solely to defeat, not because they thought Tucker would win, but solely.
Because they thought it would split the vote.
You split the vote and DeSantis would win.
And thus they would have their man in.
But Mark Bankston is a nut job.
He's a lunatic.
He's the lawyer.
He was the guy going, Bobby Barnes, Bobby Barnes, when he saw you outside the Texas court.
That nut job.
He started hopping up and down like a bat, like a rabbit on heroin when I walked into the courtroom.
So Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for $787 million because Fox News said they tried to paint it as though Trump had spoken to Gavin a day ago about what was going on in LA.
And then Gavin Newsom, you gotta, everyone who saw my vlog from yesterday is gonna have seen this already, but it's worth replaying if I can find it, which I can't because I don't have it here.
Oh, damn it, whatever.
It was Trump saying, I spoke to him a day ago.
And then Gavin Newsom takes to a tweet and says, there was no call, no voicemail, no nothing.
And then he accuses Fox News of selectively or editing the video to take out the a day ago that I spoke with Gavin Newsom, Donald Trump saying, to say that Gavin Newsom said there was no call when there was a call two days ago.
I mean, other than it being a pure publicity stunt, I mean, what's the deeper underlying issue to this?
This is Gavin Newsom trying to make it look like he's going to run for president in 2028?
Well, yeah, no question he sees it as a PR move.
The only limitation is that, I mean, two things, what we pointed out at the time, by Fox writing that huge check to Dominion for no obvious reason, it was going to incentivize tons of more lawsuits against them.
So that's, I mean, they even list that, they request that amount in punitive damages, which other courts would sanction a lawyer for putting in such a frivolous amount as that amount, as it was claimed there by Bankston.
But also, why is Fox News still incorporated in Delaware?
I mean, how do they not know at this point not to be there?
Uh, it just shows the arrogance, I think, of the Murdoch, but they should have relocated a long time ago to more friendly confines than Delaware.
Uh, but otherwise, this is a frivolous suit because what Jesse Waters said, Jesse Waters, they're saying Jesse Waters defamed Craig Newsom, uh, I mean, Gavin Newsom.
Gavin Newsome, I was thinking of a famous Green Bay Packer, the Gavin Newsom, by saying that, in fact, he had called President Trump when he had put out a tweet saying, quote, no call.
And what Jesse Waters said was precisely correct.
Not only that, Jesse Waters posted the date in which that call was made.
So there was no suggestion that he had called him within 24 hours or anything else.
It was Gavin Newsom says he had no call.
Well, here's the call that President Trump had with him.
Here, I found it.
I'll play this real quick.
Governor Newsom.
When do you speak with him?
A day ago.
A day ago.
Called him up to tell him.
A day ago.
He said this on the 10th.
And then Gavin Newsom says there was no call.
In legal terms.
The last day, a legal day, is a business day.
The business day was Friday.
That's in fact when he talked to him.
But at a minimum, it was Saturday.
What Newsom didn't say, oh, I didn't get a call from him yesterday.
He said, no call, period.
So as you pointed out, it's Newsom who lied.
And Jesse Waters and Fox called him out.
Hold on.
Your audio, let it catch up again.
But it was even, it was Saturday morning that Barnes, that Barnes, that Trump spoke with Gavin.
So Saturday morning, Sunday, Monday, and on Tuesday, he says, I spoke with him a day ago.
Gavin Newsom's a pathological liar.
I want him to get spanked, but they're going to file a motion to dismiss.
I don't know what an anti-slap, but you never know in Delaware.
The other reason why they're suing in Delaware is because I don't think Delaware has an anti-slap law.
Not interesting my recollection.
Because otherwise they'd sue in California.
California has a robust anti-slap law.
So Newsom doesn't want to have to write a big check to Trump for filing a frivolous lawsuit against him.
And the only reason it won't be considered immediately frivolous is if he gets lucky with a loony judge in Delaware.
That's it, because it's a bogus case.
Jesse Waters said that, in fact, a call occurred, that he documented when that call occurred, and he simply responded to Gavin Newsom saying no call occurred.
So they're making up a case that doesn't exist.
It's a frivolous case by a frivolous lawyer who's getting away with it because of left-wing jurisdictions that, as we discovered from Justice Jackson this week, don't care about the law.
Look, you're right.
Well, it says Delaware has an anti-slap legislation, but it's relatively narrow in scope.
So that's interesting.
A lot of your anti-slap laws are written so narrowly that they don't affect most cases.
Yeah, that's very interesting.
Let me rebreath this one because I don't even know what this means.
T-Heitz says, insert yourself as an influencer of Trump's decisions by sharing your opinion, but then act as though bumbling along the rest of the time, being the best president of our lifetime, if not ever.
I don't understand what that means, but I'll just say one thing.
What makes Trump the best president of our lifetime is that he listens to people who speak and sometimes to ordinary everyday Americans and he gives them voice with greater consistency than any president we've had in the modern era.
Robert, let's get to the Supreme Court victories of last week, which are going to allow Donald Trump to continue being, as far as I'm concerned, the best president ever, which doesn't make him immune from criticism.
So pick the ones that you want to start with.
There was a good one.
We probably got to start with the big daddy of them all, the universal injunctions.
So this is the best case ever.
I don't know if this makes you like Amy Coney Barrett a little more.
There was vitriol going on between the majority.
And it was Amy Coney who wrote the majority, right?
And KBJ or KJB, Kantanji Brown at Jackson.
They basically said she's the biggest idiot on earth, doesn't understand basic principles of law, and doesn't want to go through the required intellectual process to draft precedential decisions or at least precedential dissents.
It was six to three along party lines, three, three, and three.
So the three conservatives, the three institutionalists, and then the three progressive liberal activist judges, hacks on the bench, Sodomoyer and KBJ.
They basically, this was universal injunctions, but in the context of the executive order on birthright citizenship.
They didn't get into the substance of the birthright citizenship discussion, although they said it's likely to succeed on the merits.
So these injunctions are going to be struck down.
But by the way, there has never been a precedent for nationwide injunctions.
It's never existed until relatively recently, and it's only become standard even more recently.
And it's absolutely unwarranted and basically creates a judicial, what is it?
It was an imperial judiciary where Katanji Brown Jackson is scared of an imperial executive.
It was the best thing ever.
What is your takeaway from it?
And that was as vicious as it's ever gotten between Supreme Court justices, or has there been worse?
Oh, no, no.
Okay, fine.
I'm overhyping it.
Sorry.
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm just saying that you don't see it often, but you definitely see some real contentiousness at times between different members of the court.
What I think we saw, the Supreme Court's term ended this week.
So there'll still be emergency rulings they'll make and cert decisions they'll make throughout the summer.
But we won't get any more big decisions like this in all likelihood until the fall.
So what you are seeing is the split that we talked about several years ago, that you have a conservative right, you have a liberal left, and then you have an institutionalist center.
And the conservatives on the right are Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito.
Gorsuch, on some issues, will deviate with his libertarian leanings on criminal defense cases, civil rights cases, some Native American rights, tribal rights cases.
In some of those cases, he will be on his own.
In fact, he was sometimes a decisive vote against the conservatives a couple of times this term, including a case or two we'll talk about here in a second.
But you're seeing them form.
In fact, in many, more and more cases, those three are dissenting or the three liberals are dissenting.
The institutionalists are increasingly under Roberts' control, and especially, it appears to me, Barrett.
Barrett is increasingly becoming Robert's sort of number two.
So expect her to be a lot like Roberts on a go-forward basis.
I think Roberts won her over on these set of issues.
I think he probably wanted to persuade the liberals.
And I think his way in part he brought her in on this was by them not ruling on third-party standing, by them not ruling on class action standing, by them not ruling on birthright citizenship.
They left these huge loopholes that are going to be abused throughout the summer.
We'll probably see this week decisions made that reinstate the same injunctions, just now disguised as class actions, now disguised as statewide claims that all the state have standing for everybody in the state.
This is where the concurring opinions of Alito, of Thomas, of Gorsuch, and to a degree, Kavanaugh wanted to go further because they realized this is a disaster still waiting to happen if this continued interference occurs.
But at least Roberts hemmed in the worst and the most egregious interventions by getting rid of universal injunctions.
Because people were describing him as nationwide because they were so geographic in scope.
But the other way to think of him, and as the court described him, the universal, meaning parties that are not parties to the case being enjoined related to the conduct of the case.
And there they started with the Constitution.
The Constitution provides that the court, that Congress determines all the authority of the inferior courts.
That is every court other than the Supreme Court of the United States, the district courts and the courts of appeals.
And so what has Congress done?
Well, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, back to the time of our founding, and that law has not substantively changed in many respects.
And that law said you, federal district and appellate courts, other than the Supreme Court, have all the equitable jurisdiction that the chancery courts in England at the time had.
Those chancery courts, it's important, this is like you can get into legal title disputes.
Where does trust law originate?
All goes back to this.
It's that in England, you could appeal to the king's conscience.
If the rules of law didn't protect you, you could appeal to the king's conscience and say, this is an unjust outcome, king.
Please set it aside.
And the king delegated that to his chancellor that created chancery courts.
And these became the source of equitable power in English law.
But by that very nature, as the Supreme Court went through in its decision, that is usually an individualized assessment.
By definition, it's not going to be a class action.
By definition, it's not going to be universal.
And so since Congress only gave lower courts the power the chancery courts of England had at the time, that meant universal injunctions, injunctions beyond the parties to the case, is foreign to equitable jurisdiction.
And an injunction is an equitable action.
A word of monetary damages is a legal action, whereas all forms of injunctions are, by definition, equitable in nature.
So they only have the power the chancery courts had at the time of our founding.
That hasn't changed because Congress hasn't extended or expanded that power.
And there was discussion, the Big Beautiful Bill to deal with this.
Now that got mooted by the Supreme Court saying, no, you do not have universal injunction power.
You never did.
This is something that's a new phenomenon over the last century, especially under Trump.
Almost all the universal injunctions ever issued in the history of American courts have come against President Trump.
That's how political it is.
The dissent, yet Sodomayor and Kagan just arguing for extended judicial power.
And what I liked about Jackson's dissent is it was intellectually honest.
Now, some people were being critical online.
They're saying, why are people like us and others referring to these decisions as the signs of stupid people?
It's because they're stupid people.
And that's why I like Justice Jackson's opinion, because I want an honest decision representing the modern legal left.
And they're morally stupid in the Kierkegaard kind of sense, in the old philosophical sense, the Bonhoeffer sense.
It's a morally stupid, but it's also an electron.
I mean, when you actually say in a court decision, things like, what's all this legalese?
What's all this technical stuff?
Oh, we got some technical stuff in the Constitution.
What it's honestly reflective and representative of is that decision you should read, the Jackson dissent, in that case, in the Universal Injunction case, because it tells you exactly what the legal left thinks.
It's what they've been taught and trained to do.
They are power-driven.
They do not care about principles of law.
They do not care about rules of law.
They care about power and only power.
And to them, as long as Trump is in the White House, that meant that district courts had to have the power against Trump.
If it was Biden in the White House, Jackson would be happy to flip that script entirely.
So this is power-driven, and that's all you see.
And you see it honestly represented with her disdain for constitutional principle, her disdain for Supreme Court precedent, her disdain for the clear limitations of originalist interpretation, her disdain for the plain language of the congressional text itself, her disdain for the separation of powers.
To her, it's about our side's supposed to have power, and we will wield it and weaponize it for our side to win.
And we don't care about anything else.
And it expresses that in unadulterated, unfiltered terms.
I'm trying to find the passage, but I can't find it right now.
It was just, it was amazing.
It's like, yes, it's a very complicated legal.
Let's simplify the question.
Does the executive have unchecked power?
And in answering her own question, she says they shouldn't.
And it should be for the judiciary to have unchecked power over the executive.
And the majority says no.
The reality is it's by law that the judiciary doesn't have power over the executive.
And like Amy Coney said, yeah, no one's above the law.
And that includes judges, especially, you know, whatever they look at, the district federal court judges who don't have this power to enjoin the president, period.
Marbury is the decision.
Can you just, In a sentence, remind everybody what Marbury elucidated by way of jurisprudential precedent?
Oh, just that there are limits to the Supreme Court's power.
And that's what the separation of power is all about.
She's not a judicial supremacist, she's a liberal supremacist.
So that means if the liberals' powers resides in the presidency, she's all for executive supremacy.
If the liberal power is in Congress, she's all for congressional supremacy.
But if the only source of liberal power is the judiciary, then she's for judicial supremacy.
That's the thing to understand about the left.
They don't respect rules.
They don't respect the rule of law.
They don't respect starry decisis.
They don't respect precedent.
And I think for someone like Barrett, it probably shocked her a bit of that recognition.
She fancies herself a buy-the-book person.
I don't think she is.
I think she's by a corporate book.
I think a southern aristocracy book and some other things.
And she may have really believed that her going along with the liberals in some earlier socially significant cases, even trying to get Trump to a criminal case to go forward in the case of Barrett, that that bought her some goodwill.
They don't care.
They'll sacrifice their own kids.
They'll sacrifice anybody.
You got to understand the mindset of this leftist revolutionary.
They will guillotine the person that helped them to get into positions of power.
They'll be like the Iranian regime after the commies helped the Ayatollah.
Then they turned around and said, time to chop your head off.
Surprise, surprise.
Welcome to the French Revolution.
This is who they are.
This is how they think.
It's a good sign that Barrett was forced in this position to break from them.
I think she's going to be aligned with Roberts now.
Now, at least I took a lot of heat for predicting that Roberts would ultimately come down this way on these cases, that he recognized judicial protection of its position of power depended on reigning in these insane lower courts.
And I had a lot of people tell me, you're wrong, Barnes.
You don't know.
So it was nice to see him deliver on what we thought of him.
I still don't care for him.
I don't care for his jurisprudence in general.
I don't think he's a constitutional conservative, but he is an institutionalist who at least is pragmatic enough to realize the judiciary was jeopardizing itself, its credibility, its integrity, its legitimacy by continuing this war on Trump.
And he got Barrett on board.
So that's promising.
Huge win for Trump to stop this nonsense.
He had other wins.
We can get to on immigration.
Big win on opt-out rights.
One of my favorite all-time cases became reaffirmed as precedent.
I've been trying to argue this for a while in a range of cases across the country.
So it was beautiful to see that done.
So your five-year-old doesn't have to get stuck reading pervert books at your local public school.
Let's get to that one in a second, but let me bring up, I want to bring this up because in case I misread it, but oh, Vita Rosa says to a fellow Canadian, thank God my parents left, says Vita Rosa.
T. Height said, I mean, no disrespect, you are both amazingly talented and brilliant gentlemen, and I appreciate you for educating all of us.
I might have misread it, so my apologies.
Everybody has something in their past.
Takes personal moral to get past it.
Politicians have little morals.
Cousin Eddie says the BB, the Big Beautiful Bill is junk.
A complete sellout for the Second Amendment community that won't soon forget this knife in the back.
Cousin Eddie's point, what it is is they put provisions in the bill to get the pro-life community on board by defunding Planned Parenthood, by to get the Second Amendment community on board by getting rid of the suppressor requirements and other provisions.
It appears those provisions have been stripped from the bill.
So it's classic.
In other words, if you weren't a lobbyist, I mean, here's credit to President Trump, because if it wasn't for Trump, there would be nothing done on tips, nothing done on taxing overtime, nothing done on taxing Social Security, nothing done on any of these things, to be blunt about it.
The tax cuts probably would have gone through because there's plenty of donors that care about the big tax cuts.
But for ordinary people, they wouldn't have fought for any of them.
And so it's obvious, it's where my disagreement with Massey is.
I would work to leverage his influence to get better.
I mean, take Senator Hawley.
He was going to vote against the bill unless it protected small rural hospitals in some of the Medicaid cuts.
He got that buttressed in such a way that rural hospitals are not going to go under.
So I think that the net effect of it, you know, the, but it's credit to Trump.
But they're right that the Second Amendment, my understanding is the Second Amendment protective provisions and the pro-life provisions are no longer in the bill.
And I want to read this one here as well, which is FBI headed to Idaho after firefighters and police ambushed by shooters.
I'm going to check that out in a second.
T. Heights says, I agree, Trump best president.
My point was the degree Barnes' insights tends to impugn Trump's intelligence.
I don't think it does, but he's a very, very smart guy.
I just think he's put under pressure by a lot of different people and doesn't always know what is going to work tactically.
And areas he doesn't have tons of experience or expertise, like foreign policy.
And I think the problem is the institutional actors in the State Department still give bad advice because they're so infiltrated by people with bad intentions or are just incompetent, just to put it bluntly.
Robert, the case, well, let's get to the first one before we get to the purple.
Now, let's go to the porn from porn to the purple.
Oh, the porn, the porn case.
So, by the way, I didn't know that this happened in Florida until I was on an episode of the Unusual Suspects on Value Attainment.
And one of them made the joke, like, you can't even get porn in Florida now without having to register an ID.
I was like, that's not, that can't be true.
And I went on to you, Viva, that you had to discover that ID.
Well, no, because I was like, it's in my search engine, but I went to Pornhub in Florida, and it's a video of a lady that comes up and says, we don't really want to do this, but we've been forced to, you know, you have to register an ID, and we're not going to do that because we respect privacy and yada yada.
So go to a state.
You were just looking at it for legal research purposes.
It was only after someone told me that they're like, oh.
Just for the substance of the articles.
So now I don't mind the ruling because on the one hand, I think it's a good way to make sure kids don't get access to it.
There's a lot of other bypasses to it.
But it was 6-3 saying that it was constitutionally valid or not violative to require identification to check in to make sure that you're not a minor and uploaded to the website so you can access porn.
What's your take on it?
So yeah, they said the only reason why there was any First Amendment issue, because it's always been obscenity is not First Amendment protected.
Certain things are, but the definition of obscenity varies by age.
Things are obscene for minors that are not obscene for adults, unless you're in the Montgomery County School Board.
But the, so the, what, so Texas passed laws wanting to make sure people that were minors were not accessing pornography online because it's exploded.
And there's been a wide range of criticism, some from religious conservatives, but others from just good psychological communities that have been, look, the explosion of pornography is harming the mental health of many young people, especially young men, but also young women.
And so that was also what informed these new laws being passed.
The question was, so that's always been constitutional.
The issue was the degree to which it provides an incidental burden on adults because now anyone in order to access it in those states, you know, use a VPN, folks.
You don't have to worry about this.
So that's, you know, that's why some of the complaints of UPON and the rest, I was like, come on, that's not really a problem.
I mean, down deep, they wanted access to underage people is what I think.
Because the people who use VPNs will do whatever they want these days, including in Iran, right?
Like Iran just said no more Starlink available.
How are they going to shut it down?
Good luck with that.
Iran's had no success being able to shut down its own internet.
That's how Israel was able to hack them so easily and take off their military systems offline for about 12 hours when they did the initial attack.
But the issue was that there could be some adults who choose for whatever reason not to use a VPN to want to access it, who now have to provide verification of their age.
Now, there was a separate concern raised by one of our members of the board.
They were worried that this was a backdoor attempt to control anonymous speech.
There was also a separate concern.
Hold on, hold on.
That's why it went up to the Fifth Circuit, by the way.
other concern is that they're doing this to gather Intel and information.
Well, that that's where I would have gone with blackmail over what, I'm not even sure I understand it.
You have a right of anonymous speech.
You have a right to be anonymous.
And the question is, in order to access this content, are you no longer allowed to be anonymous?
And that all depends on how the age verification really works.
Now, that issue was not presented in this appeal.
So the Supreme Court didn't address whether or not their particular method of age verification, they only addressed, could you require age verification within the First Amendment?
And that's an intermediate scrutiny standard, not a strict scrutiny standard, because it's only incidental burden.
It's not the target.
The target is don't let minors have access.
And the question then, and thus the over-inclusive, under-inclusive analysis isn't the same like it would be in a strict scrutiny case.
So here they said, you know, as long as you had a pretty, as long as it was, you know, fairly related, that what you were trying to do, it was sufficient.
The question wasn't addressed, what, to what extent it burdens anonymity.
In other words, your ability to access whatever you want content-wise, that's within your speech rights, that's not considered obscene for an adult, that now you have to disclose your identity in order to get the age verify.
What was it called?
The Ashley-Madison leak.
Like, this is where I would imagine there will be a leak.
People are, it's not that the government has access to it.
The government surveils you anyhow.
It'll be leaked and you will be, I mean, as if anybody thinks anybody who searched the internet for porn is a pervert.
I think like, what is it, 85% of men are perverts then, but it would be used for blackmail or other extortive means, either for a government, a bad actor, or it gets leaked to the public.
And that's the related component.
Some people may say this is a dishonest, disingenuous concern and, you know, that someone's asking for a friend, how they can research certain things.
But it's really not, because if you've studied the history of internet regulation in the United States, they often start off with terrorism, violence, and child pornography as their focal points.
But often the goal isn't those things.
The goal is in order to gatekeep on the internet from other things that all of a sudden, what started out as, hey, we don't want these bad things available and accessible to say to children, all of a sudden, well, we don't want you to hear Robert Kennedy's views on vaccines because now that's even more dangerous.
Right.
So the concern is where that line is drawn.
A lot of those issues weren't presented in this case because UPorn was taking a broad-based and the porn industry was taking a broad-based claim that no age verification could be allowed.
And the point the majority made is if you walk into a retail store to buy at an adult film store, you have to provide your identity to buy there.
So it's like it's suddenly online and that's suddenly a First Amendment burden.
So I agree with the decision.
I don't think it was.
I think this did meet First Amendment scrutiny.
I think there's very legitimate reasons to be concerned with minors' access to what's going on out there that we've seen did, you know, big tech in general has been a nightmare for the psychological well-being of young people.
You know, we've had a five-fold increase in young girls causing self-harm.
Their anxiety levels, their depression levels, their mental health levels are the worst they've arguably ever been.
And some of this is clearly related to big tech.
It times directly to big tech's growth.
As big tech grows, mental health problems with young people has grown with it almost directly.
Robert, I just wanted to double check a number, and I went to see what number of men have looked up porn.
Data specifically addressing U.S. men watching pornography in the last year is Limited.
2022 reported that 69% of U.S. men had viewed porn.
Come on.
They can't pick that.
That number has to be a gag and Grok is playing with us.
But it's like 70, 80.
Right, right.
Sorry.
Yeah, dirty mind.
Yeah, I've got no problem with the decision.
The point you make is 1,000% right.
You can't rent it from a video store, although they don't do that anymore.
I think the concern about making sure they don't use this as an information gathering technique for blackmail extortion purposes, for denying you your right to anonymously access things, those are legitimate concerns.
There's ways to these, they can build in age verification that does not require that kind of disclosure.
So the key, the devil will be in the details, and we should continue to monitor that so they don't misuse and abuse this power to suppress anonymous access To the internet or to gather blackmail and extortion material on everybody.
Okay, the jokes are coming.
I gave up porn and alcohol.
It was the scariest 20 minutes of my life.
Okay, speaking of accessing porn, the Montgomery School Board was trying to force your kids to read what I consider perverted books.
Well, but the solution is not much of a solution.
So six to three, again, and I presume it's six conservatives or three institutions.
Well, it was six to three, but it was 513 because Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.
All right.
And it allows students to opt out of perverted lessons.
The question is going to be this, and from a social bullying perspective, kids that opt out or families that opt out, are they not, if you're in a progressive school, are they not, I mean, it's Montgomery, Alabama, so I don't know what it's like there, but are they not just putting it in Maryland?
Oh, I'm sorry, Montgomery, Maryland.
Well then, give me an idea, folks, out there.
Why should you care what the Montgomery, aside from the constitutional implications of this decision, Montgomery County, Maryland has more government employees than almost any county in the country?
What does it tell you that they're trying to convert their schools into woke indoctrination?
I thought it was five-year-olds, five-year-olds to read books about celebrating gay marriage and lesbian relationship and gender identity and you're not really a girl, you're really a boy.
And I remember when I told the case they cite in this, of course, is the wonderful Yoder case, Yoder versus the state of Wisconsin, which was a great Amish case that because the Amish were standing up for their right to control their children's education consistent with their community values.
It established the right of homeschooling in this country, the right to attend religious schools in this country.
All of that was established by the Amish in the Yoder case.
Forever, the liberal justices and judges have been trying to water it down and say Yoder doesn't mean anything beyond this very limited set of factual circumstances.
And Gorsuch, to his great credit, said, nah, nah, nah.
Yoder is the law of the land and will stay the law of the land.
This was not only very important for religious rights, First Amendment, but for parental rights.
They said yoder is the law of the land.
That means the parents' right to control their kids' upbringing, especially when it implicates religious values.
It's a massive decision against the indoctrination of our school system.
Hold up.
I think I got to let your internet catch up again, Robert.
But the question is going to be one of not an illusory.
So upholding yoder as the law of the land, parental rights, et cetera.
Is it not illusory insofar as you're in Montgomery, Maryland, you know, highest number of government employees?
You opt your kid out of the class.
They're going to find other ways to discriminate against those bigoted children and bigoted families.
What is it?
I mean, this is saying you can opt out, but it's not saying they can't teach it.
And so you're going to have to take a political stand at your progressive public school or whatever if you decide to opt out.
Yeah, yes.
But the ability to, here's the other thing.
So many kids were opting out that they weren't able to teach the lessons.
That's why they didn't allow them to opt out anymore.
So that gives you an idea for even in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a very lefty jurisdiction, it tells you where the powers that be.
Again, these are people that have high-ranking government positions are.
This is what they want the school system to look like.
And great credit to Gorsuch adopting and embracing and putting forward Yoder, real reinstatement of parental rights, reinstatement of religious rights against the woke indoctrinators.
But also Thomas wrote a beautiful concurrence.
The three liberals descended, no surprise.
They believe in all the woke indoctrination insanity.
But Thomas made the point.
He goes, schools, and he went through the whole history.
He's like, public education is being contorted and distorted.
He goes, it used to be, you know, the reading, writing, and arithmetic, as he used to say back home in Tennessee.
That's what you're supposed to be teaching, not social values, not religious values, not cultural values.
He talked about how this is done, how this fits into an ugly history of attacking Catholics, for example, at the beginning.
And Justice Thomas is a Catholic, for those that may not remember that, but how the public school systems were used to suppress and attack Catholics at the beginning of the 20th century.
That was the Oklahoma case that ended up being a 4-4 split because Barrett went A well on it, because he couldn't vote for some reason, unexplained reason.
But he also pointed out, he goes, what the heck are we doing doing sex education for five-year-olds?
He's like, this is insane.
This has never been part of the public educational mission to begin with.
And his point is that he had a wonderful quote.
They want to, quote, standardize children in the image of the state.
Exactly right.
Thomas nailed it to a T, representing that his great, deep populist instincts.
We see Gorsuch representing that by citing the Yoder case and Thomas and his brilliant concurrence.
It's a problem of the public education system writ large.
They want to be your parents.
They want to replace the parent.
That's what they want to do.
They want to replace the parent.
The parent's teaching your kid bad values.
We're going to teach them the right values.
But in order to get them to teach those values, you need to get them young.
That's why they want to teach pre-kindergarten, even pre-kindergarten, three-year-olds, four-year-olds, this kind of nonsense.
And even so it was a massive, massive win against woke indoctrination.
And why, because this will apply to a wide range of settings, saying the state has no right, that one has to be strict scrutiny every time.
So the state's got to show a compelling state interest that its mechanism is narrowly tailored to meet in order to invade the parents' right to control the religious upbringing and moral values of their child.
Massive ruling, a big, big, big win for everybody who cares about religious rights, who cares about traditional moral values, who cares about public schools being limited to actual education that matters, and against the woke indoctrination industry and its various attennas throughout the political power structure.
All right.
And then the other two big ones.
Now, hold on.
Planned Parenthood can't be government funded and HIV testing can be.
These are not intrinsically intertwined, but the other two big ones?
Yes.
So this was about the expansion.
and here's where I disagree with Thomas.
Thomas would like to...
Can I just stop you there?
why would they have ever been given state funds for something of that nature?
Oh, because they do things other than abortion.
Okay, fine.
And so there's no way of breaking it down in terms of so medical services that also cover abortion, therefore they get.
This wasn't to fund any abortion.
This was solely to fund a Planned Parenthood period in other non-abortion-related medical care.
And what it is, under the Medicaid law, it says that if you have a provider with certain, how's it phrased, any qualified provider, you're supposed to have access to any qualified provider.
It's up to the state to determine what constitutes a qualified provider.
Planned Parenthood argued that they fit the definition of a qualified provider and that thus the refusal to reimburse them for the care they provided that was not abortion-related care, but other care that they provided, was a violation of the Medicaid laws.
The question was, so what?
And the issue there is the 40, section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code is sued whenever the state government or state government actor violates your federal civil rights or civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution or the quote unquote laws of the land.
And the question was, does this, do you have a right to bring suit as a provider if you are a qualified provider and you're not reimbursed with federal funds?
And what the Supreme Court determined is you have no right to sue, that the remedy for spending clause legislation is not a private cause of action, but is defunding.
So that it's up to the federal government.
That's the only, that certain remedies are built in so that only the executive or legislative branch can act on them, not for the judicial branch to have a role in them.
Now, Roberts would go further.
He would radically curtail 42 USC 1983 back to its 1871 origins.
I understand why he sees it as this rogue tool that ideologues use to clog up the judiciary in such a way.
He goes through that there's 65,000 civil rights cases filed every year in federal court.
And that often it's used to clog up where they lose politically.
Lose an election, go to court instead.
So I get where his concern is, but I like 1983 civil rights statutes in general.
I don't think there was one applicable here.
And I think their decision was the correct decision, even if it was someone that I don't happen to be a Planned Parenthood fan.
You know, any organization rooted in racial eugenics is not an organization I'm going to be a fan of.
But even if it was a pro-life organization doing it, I think it was California refusing to reimburse.
I still think the same thing.
They don't have a private cause of action.
The enforcement mechanism for spending clause cases, in other words, power over a state coming from the government spending money to that state, should be the government deciding whether to spend or not.
So I think ultimately it was the right decision.
The three liberals dissented again.
Thomas concurrence is not one I would share to the scale he would to places he would go.
He's establishing, he's like the, because some people will get annoyed at this reference, but he's like the Thomas Massey of the Supreme Court.
He's going to stand for what he's going to stand for, come hell or high water, even if he knows he's out there all by himself and will never get a majority with him.
I loved his concurrence in the school case.
Not as big a fan of his concurrence in this case, even if I understand where he's coming from.
All right, and then I guess the last big one was – We got an immigration case.
We got a sentencing case.
Yeah, those are the...
There we go.
We got the task force case and the non-delegation doctrine.
Hold up.
Let me let you catch up there.
Your audio is going glitchy again, but there is breaking news, which is multiple firefighters attacked while responding to fire in North Idaho.
Governor Little heartbroken over heinous assault that forced crews to retreat as wildfires continue to threaten area.
I'm predicting some form of terrorism here because this sounds like they lured firefighters in to shoot him.
Police and emergency responders are on the scene of an active shooter incident where several firefighters have reportedly been shot.
Spokesperson for the Northern Lakes Fire Protection confirmed active shooter situation and a very active wildfire scene that they are related.
And apparently, if I can bring this up, which is something that Encryptus sent me in the backdrop, we've got this video here.
Bring it down.
Pause it.
Sorry.
It says what we know so far, nine firefighters and two cops shot.
Conditions unknown.
All life light on all life flight on call.
And I think there was another report that I'm seeing confirmed two or two have died.
But they don't know what happened.
They don't know why it happened.
They don't know.
Who is it confirming that two, in fact, have died?
Breaking the sheriff of Kootenai County has confirmed the two reports.
Someone is, you know, like, have you ever listened to those police scanners?
Yep.
It looks like that's their source, is that they're listening in on the scanners.
Wow.
Oh, Encryptus, how's it going?
You're on mute.
Okay, go for it.
So I've been following this for the last few minutes.
It looks like they were lured out there.
The wildfire was started to actually bring them out there.
Active shooters still shooting at the police as of right now.
Just started about two hours ago.
All right, well, we'll follow that.
Robert, so go with the last decisions, and then I guess we're going to take the party over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Wait, wait, wait.
Sorry.
Before you do that, let me get a few more of the crumble rants.
At least we'll make amends with T-Heitz.
I enjoy Viva's takes as it usually doesn't come across as self-promotion, right or wrong.
Thank you for the non-biased approach to news and dissertation.
All the way up to the top.
Let's hope Roberts can control the, cannot control the cat fight.
Sorry, I thought that's in can.
I was like, why would you want that?
Okay, good.
That's it.
Sorry, Robert.
I think the pay-per-view on that would be pretty good.
That would be Supreme Court cat fight.
But yeah, we got non-delegation doctrine.
Remember the task force, the healthcare task force?
They finally made a decision on that case.
What's interesting in both cases is that the Supreme Court rewrote the whole law to make it constitutional.
So I was like, the task force, for those who don't remember, this is there's a healthcare task force that determines what every insurer in the country has to provide as preventative services.
Incredible amount of power.
And they're all unelected, and they're not appointed by elected officials either.
And so it was obvious to me that it was a violation of the principles.
Well, at the last minute, they claimed that buried in all of the law, that Secretary of the Health and Human Services, which is currently Robert Kennedy, had the complete power to hire and fire these people whenever he wanted and could overrule their policy decisions whenever he wanted.
Even though that had never been the established interpretation of this since Obama put it through in 2010.
So the, because otherwise they are inferior officers.
In other words, they're principal officers, if they have the power to make decisions equal to the president or the president or a appointee that's been appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate.
And so to me, it was clear they're acting as principal officers.
They said, no, no, they're really inferior officers because it turns out the Secretary of Health and Human Services has always had this power to completely negate anything they do.
And it's like, okay, well, at least they didn't make bad law.
There was a Thomas Gorsuch and Alito, the three conservatives, dissented because they're like, this is nonsense.
These are principal officers acting like principal officers who are just doing so unconstitutionally.
And that's how it's been treated for the last 14 years.
But because of how they rewrote it, it basically means Bobby Kennedy can go in there now that he's Secretary of Health and Human Services and he can fire anybody who wants to fire because they've made it clear he can fire him at will.
No for cause limitation or anything else.
So you might be seeing news not too far along on that front.
So at least it's Kennedy there that gets to exercise this power.
But I agree with the dissent that the point of democratic accountability is not to have these rogue agencies operating this way in the first place.
Now, the but again, they salvaged it with their novel interpretation of the statute.
The other one like that was the non-delegation doctrine.
So this involves the FCC basically taxing companies to provide the universal mandate.
This is that requires certain communications companies make sure that people that the market would not normally serve, they have to serve as a condition of their license.
And part of the way they do this is they get a funding for it and they decide a rate that the various big companies have to pay.
Kind of sounds like a tax or a tariff.
So what's interesting about this decision is there's good language in it for President Trump's tariff authority, because guess which case they cite?
They cite J.W. Hampton as their primary predicate.
What's that about?
That's about the president having congressionally delegated power to do whatever tariff he wanted.
So they're implicitly greenlighting the president's tariff authority through this case.
Now, Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas again dissented.
Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion.
Who was maybe, I forget, someone else wrote a concurring opinion.
So it's all over the place.
It's a 4-2-3 decision.
Well, we talked about a couple of weeks ago that when these cases are getting delayed, it means they're all fighting in there and they can't come up with a unanimity.
This is what we saw.
We didn't see a lot of 9-0 decisions this week.
It was actually 3-5-1-4, you know, whatever.
Yeah, well, the big ones were 6-3-6-3-6-3 and along party lines.
Sometimes the conservatives in dissent, sometimes the liberals in dissent, because the institutionalists have the control of the court right now.
Thank God Roberts recognized he had to step back from the breach, and he did on the universal injunctions.
So what they said is that, so the question is, Congress has the power of the purse.
So it's like, how is this agency basically taxing people?
It's like, how is that within, Congress can't delegate its legislative task.
Congress can't delegate its power of the purse.
So how is this happening outside of very limited and constricted circumstances?
Well, the Supreme Court treated it like it was a tariff case.
They said it's just like the Congress giving broad authority to the president to impose tariffs because it's within, but the thing there is that's Article II executive foreign policy power.
So that's always been considered the other pillar to why that was okay.
They've gone further now.
They've said that Congress can, within the non-delegation doctrine, delegate these kind of decisions to even independent agencies.
Now, Kavanaugh wrote a concurring decision, making clear he doesn't think independent agencies have any such authority and that independent agencies are exceeding their authority altogether because there's no democratic accountability.
Independent agencies being these agencies that are like the fourth branch of government, they're not appointed by the president.
They're not confirmed by the Senate.
They're not elected by anybody.
And now they even have the power of the purse or the power to make healthcare decisions.
And so they hemmed it in at least a little bit, but not fully.
And thus you got Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas dissenting because they're like a tax is a tax is a tax and pretending it's anything other than a tax is devolving of the constitutional role Congress is supposed to play for these independent agencies.
Of note, Jackson, this gives you an idea of where the liberal courts are going.
She would have, like, because what you had here was you had both a public agency and a private agency.
They had delegated to a private agency figuring out how to figure out what the tax rate should be, the tariff charge rate should be.
And so the Fifth Circuit had said this combination of a private agency and a public agency doing things that are not clearly delegated to them raises constitutional questions.
Supreme Court said no, said it's okay because it fits within the tariff doctrine, the same doctrine, which implicitly says Trump is going to win on his tariff cases going forward based on what they did here.
Good news for the Trump administration.
The sketchy part is this private agency role and independent board agency role.
Kavanaugh said the independent board issue wasn't directly raised, so they weren't fully raising it, and it wasn't going to that part.
Jackson would have greenlit private agencies.
He would have greenlit the power of Congress to give all of its legislative powers, including the ability to impose taxes to private agencies.
Right now, that's still precluded.
What the Supreme Court did here is they said the private agency was just an information law.
Telling you what the, they weren't setting the rate.
The commission was setting the rate.
But Jackson would have gone further and said, it's just fine if Congress gives it all to private agencies.
This gives you an idea for how crazy the left is getting in terms of its power structure.
Well, I mean, What's the interplay between that and overturning the Chevron decision and the deferential?
I mean, this is not administrative bodies, but private entities.
I mean, does the same logic not apply?
What she would do is she would take the, she would say that we should defer still under Chevron.
Because a Chevron was, do you have to defer to the agency's interpretation of the law?
This didn't change that at all.
This only was what could an agency raise money without a specific mandate from Congress to raise that money.
And they said, yes, because of how it was constructed.
Now, Kavanaugh said because it's an independent agency, he wouldn't allow it, but because an independent, that issue wasn't raised before them, he went along with the decision.
Jackson was saying Congress can not only delegate, she doesn't agree with their reversal of the Chevron Doctrine.
The other thing the Supreme Court did in the EPA case was said, if it's a major question, then Congress can't delegate it without clear direction.
But they said here, there was enough clear direction.
It wasn't really a tax.
It was more raising revenue.
And just the fact they're raising revenue didn't create a problem.
CJW Hampton, president's power, executive branch power to impose tariffs if given broad tariff authority by Congress, which Congress has repeatedly done.
So that's how they greenlit this.
Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas dissented because to them a tax is a tax tax and that that should be a power reserved to Congress without more or at least with better confines than being provided here.
They said there was an intelligible principle given.
This is a decision, you know, about a century ago, the Supreme Court came up with this kind of stuff.
Why is law and government so complicated?
It's so that they can pull tricks and screw the people and it's so that lawyers can market.
The lawyers are so disliked in part.
But it's a little scary what Jackson, where Jackson was showing you where liberal power would go.
That it would be, she would strip us of all of our constitutional constraints.
Where Jackson will be good is on civil rights and criminal defendant cases.
And in every other arena, she will not be an advocate for liberty against the government.
All right.
What else before we take this part?
Sentencing, standing, and immigration are our three remaining SCOTUS cases of the week.
And then we got our historic case of the week is the NAACP versus a hardware company because it relates to the BDS laws that Florida just passed.
The anti-BDS laws, whether they're constitutional or not, is a boycott constitutionally protected.
And the Qatari forced labor case that kind of relates to your Canadian case.
Those are the remaining topics to cover.
So you can figure out which ones we want to cover here and which ones over at VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
Now the family has come back.
I'm going to put it on mute whenever I'm not talking.
By the way, everybody, if ever you see a message in locals that doesn't make sense, like here's the link to locals, it's because in a Rumble Studio, when I put it in for all platforms, it publishes it to Twitter, UCommeTube, Rumble, and Locals.
So when I share the link, I know everybody in Locals already has it.
Robert, do the Qatari one.
I don't think people understand the slave labor that's going on in Qatar right now in terms of foreigners who are being trafficked and kept captive for local business demands.
So for Qatar to build its World Cup, they hosted there in 2022, they needed to import the labor because they didn't have the domestic labor support for it.
So they subcontracted out, in many cases, to big U.S. companies.
What the U.S. companies did is what is very common, frankly, in the Gulf states, Dubai as well, is they build those big, beautiful, fancy buildings, or in this case, big, beautiful arenas by basically having slave labor.
So they bring people in, in this case, a lot of people from the Philippines, but usually Southeast Asia and India and Bangladesh are some of the main areas of immigration for these, and they promise them things that they don't deliver on, promise some benefits they don't deliver on, often seize their passports and control their movements.
And so they become de facto slave labor.
And so it's a big problem in Dubai.
It was a big problem with the way Qatar set up its World Cup facilities.
And several of these sued under, people forget there's federal law that allows you that if you're being trafficked for certain purposes, including forced labor purposes, anywhere in the world, you can sue in the United States if there's any kind of U.S. connection, U.S. money, U.S. company, you name it.
And here's some people sued in Colorado in federal court, documenting how badly they were abused.
And they thought they could get out of it.
The big corporate law firms, these same woke liberal types, always represent these big corporations engaged in actual slave labor.
While they're saying, the same people, though, say, restitution for what happened a century and a half ago are busy defending big corporations doing forced labor slavery as we speak.
The federal magistrate struck much of the case, but not all of it.
Said the forced labor part could go forward.
So hopefully we'll start to see more relief and remedy in that area.
There are still some access points in the American legal system for the abuse and human trafficking of people around the world.
And I hope people employ and utilize those legal benefits more often to try to hem it in, especially when there's a lot of U.S. corporate profiteers off this de facto slave labor and human trafficking.
Robert, I'm sure you've heard, I see this from our locals community, grumpy old man 1919.
Did you see that Allison Morrill's case was dismissed on a filing technicality?
I did hear about this.
From what I understand, her lawyer is going to be on with her tomorrow to explain.
And I want to wait until I hear what he has to say.
My understanding, it was discovering of evidence that would have predated or dated earlier the running of the statute of limitations.
Apparently, her lawsuit was filed because her lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality in that it was filed beyond the statute of limitations because they evidentially made a mistake on the date from which the statute of limitations would run.
So the lawyer is going to be on her channel tomorrow.
I'm going to watch that and I'm going to ask my question to him tomorrow.
So I'll deal with it tomorrow afternoon whenever I can go live.
Robert, one more before we head on over to viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Yeah, we got immigration, standing, and sentencing at the Supreme Court, and then our historic case of the week, NAACP versus Claiborne Hardware that relates to the BBS laws just passed in Florida.
Do we do all of them over on locals?
We could do one SCOTUS one and then left the rest for two briefly.
There was one on immigration that left a lot of issues unresolved.
That's the short Answer.
What they did clear up is that the president can remove someone to a third party, third party country, other than one listed in the order of removal.
And they green lit that from an injunction that had been restraining him, which was like those crazy criminals they were trying to send back to South Sudan that were being held up by a lunatic judge.
That got stayed by the Supreme Court and reversed.
So that really frees up the president with some of the most dangerous bad faith actors to move as they need.
It appears that the guy that they, you know, Mr. Maryland man, who they came, who got re-released by a federal judge, you know, they came, guy, child porn, human trafficking, gang membership, domestic violence.
I mean, the guy's got a rap sheet like you wouldn't imagine, and given what is, given what he was charged with in the federal case, and yet he's getting out.
Well, you know, January 6th defendants, you know, were locked up for three years in a hellhole.
But it looks like they've decided they're going to deport him to someplace else again.
So we'll see how that goes.
The Maryland man story just keeps going because of these judges.
Just in case anybody hadn't heard about it, let's not, I don't know if you can see that here.
Yeah, here it goes.
Seven shocking allegations against Kilmore Abracio from participating in murder to soliciting CP.
The government alleges he once solicited child pornography.
So this is not Barnes.
This was a relatively new breaking allegation.
We'll see.
Something.
He's part of the new federal case.
But I mean, this guy had been in bad faith.
I remember he was freed in Tennessee because Biden administration ordered him released when he got picked up in Tennessee in 2022 for human trafficking.
Who's in the car?
Young girls were in the car.
So what we got, what we'll save for over at the, we'll save the two last SCOTUS cases, sentencing and standing and DNA testing for innocent people and the BDS law, NAACP historic case.
And the last one we'll cover here is P. Diddy verdict incoming probably this week.
Yeah, well, I mean, what are we thinking?
The word on the street is that there was a disagreement as to whether or not the government was dropping charges or dropping predicate acts.
And I don't know if that's a distinction without a difference or splitting hairs, because if you're dropping predicate acts, predicate acts are required for RICO conspiracy.
So it seems like it's tantamount to basically giving up on certain charges, or it was attempted arson that was being dropped by way of the charge.
My understanding and prediction was that he was going to be dead to rights on some of the cross-border solicitation or trafficking and prostitution.
But what's the deal with dropping the predicate acts or predicate charges for some of the RICO stuff?
So there were some areas that they had evidentiary weakness.
So with RICO, RICO itself is not a crime in the sense that you have to commit another crime to commit RICO.
So RICO is racketeering an influence corrupt organizations act, and it was mostly designed for mobsters using extortion, blackmail, human trafficking, other things in order to get influence and control over a business.
And so that's where it originated.
So it's kind of weird that it's brought against P. Diddy.
I don't think they really have a RICO case.
Doesn't mean they won't convict because there was so much evidence that he's such a bad guy that often you get juries to convict, even the evidence may not support the legal elements of the charge.
You don't need the RICO on the, what is it, cross-border or trafficking of prostitution?
You have five charges.
The first one is RICO.
The next two, but RICO does require they have to unanimously agree he committed this other crime.
So RICO has what's called predicate acts.
So those predicate acts are other crimes, and they're specifically itemized crimes.
So there's all kinds of ways you can racketeer.
You can racketeer through bribery, through extortion, through embezzlement, through human trafficking, through illegal gambling.
There's a whole bunch of ways you can racketeer.
You can't racketeer by not paying taxes.
They excluded that, for example, from the RICO Act deliberately.
Now, of course, that hasn't stopped them from doing other nonsense, but that's another story for another day.
If anybody, well, I know some people are listening in the Trump administration.
If you want to get back on the good side of some libertarians that are unhappy with some of the foreign policy adventurism and some of the budget bills, pardon Roger Veer, one of the most important libertarian advocates anywhere in the world, is being wrongfully prosecuted by a bogus criminal case.
Might be, or at least dismiss all charges against him.
I think that's coming up at the end of July is when his hearing has been rescheduled for.
So just a little word of the wise for somebody who might be in the Trump administration thinking of some good, that'd be good policy and good politics.
You can do both at the same time sometimes.
But the, so those under, so some of the predicate acts they didn't prove.
Usually what they'll do is they'll allege like 15 predicate acts.
And then they'll figure out when it comes time to verdict, which ones did we prove?
They're just leaving their options open.
So they remove like five of them.
A whole bunch of the rest are still left.
So the arson claim that they had was kind of weak.
They didn't really have compelling evidence of it.
There were some other ones they didn't have compelling evidence of.
Also, the governments do it to put the defense on the back foot so they don't know quite what to prepare for.
They have to try to defeat this.
They have to overcome that, so on and so forth.
But Rico's still there with human trafficking as a predicate.
It's just some of the predicates are gone, but not all of them are gone.
That was the misleading headlines that came out.
People thought all of them are gone.
No, only some of them were.
He's still up for the two human trafficking charges.
Now, what's really weird is he trafficked them like Delaine Maxwell and Epstein.
Hey, Dan Bongino, when are we going to get those Epstein files?
Just wondered.
I like to make Viva's life a little more difficult.
I'll tell you this.
But Patel was on with Rogan how many weeks ago now saying they had the video that doesn't show him not killing himself, but hasn't been released yet.
What are the things that nothing has been released?
Nothing.
I mean, it's disgraceful at this point, but we'll put that one aside.
I'm blaming Bondi.
I blame Bondi.
She's in control and it's her fault.
Yeah, I mean, she's on the slower side of slow, so that wouldn't shock anybody.
But Harmy Dylan doing great work.
Just a little shout out to Harmie Dylan.
Continues to do great work at the Civil Rights Division.
Might be an educational lesson for Pam Bondi in there and Cash Patel.
And now this Cash behind me, that's referencing the one and only, the inimitable, the irreplaceable Johnny Cash.
Great book by Johnny Cash.
One of many.
Of his songs and other things.
So he's still facing the human trafficking.
All the evidence is closed now, was to himself.
That's the human trafficking, two human trafficking charges.
So do I think this meets the legal elements?
No.
Would I be shocked at an acquittal on those two counts?
No.
Now, the point you pointed out, the solicitation across state lines, the MAN Act violations, seem open and shut to me.
But those don't carry the big sentencing risk that the RICO and the human trafficking count.
10 years?
That's all he serves eight and a half.
But that's 10 years max.
Now, the judge could try to include unrelated conduct, but normally he would get about two and a half years for that.
So the big ones are, does he get convicted of either human trafficking count?
Does he get convicted of RICO?
Those are the ones where he's in prison for the rest of his life.
I think the jury, I would say two-thirds chance the jury convicts on four of the five charges.
I'm following here, Good Logic, L-A-W-J-G-I-C.
You can follow online.
He's covered, he was there day, every day in the courthouse, following the P. Diddy case, an experienced New York litigator, also Orthodox Jew.
So he had great insights on aspects of Israel.
His son, by the way, was in Israel all these attacks were happening in Jerusalem.
His father was too.
So he handled it more calmly than I probably would have if that was my situation.
But by his analysis, the one human trafficking, basically it comes down to do you think the women were coerced?
Now, to me, the problem is who is he trafficking them to?
So is domestic violence now a human trafficking charge?
Usually you're pimping them to somebody else for monetary gain.
So I have pro, you know, they didn't present that because I don't, not because I think Diddy didn't do it, but because they don't want anybody to know who it was he was trafficking them to because of the, for maybe for similar reasons as Epstein, that they're, that this would implicate high-ranking, powerful individuals and government-connected bad actors.
Just look at all the various photos and images rolling around of how close and cozy P. Diddy was, not only with Jay-Z and Kanye and others, but a certain former president known as Barack Hussein Obama.
So who knows why it is that the Bondi decided to let Maureen Comey, yeah, that Comey, the daughter of James Comey, run this case.
But as we predicted at the beginning, this was a cover-up case, not an exposure case.
But they still may get a conviction because Diddy is one heck of a scuzzbag.
And that came out in abundance at the trial.
But one of the women testified according to good logic effectively.
The other one didn't seem like she was being coerced with her testimony.
So he could see them splitting, voting guilty on one, not guilty on another.
But it'll all depend on the luck of the draw of what he got in jury selection.
And can the jury, if the jury focuses on the elements, he would only be convicted of the two smaller charges.
If, in my experience, jurors often don't just focus on the elements, most likely he gets convicted of four of the five charges, including Rico.
But it wouldn't shock me at all if he walks on all five, because what they presented as this case in the court of public opinion is not the case they presented at trial.
Oh, you're still muted.
Yeah, I was just going to see if there was a market for a Diddy conviction.
I don't think there was one.
I think there is.
I think I saw one somewhere.
It may be on it.
be on Polymarket.
It's probably on Polymarket.
Um, oh, and I want to see if I can get, I'm going to see if I can get Joe Nearman to come on this week.
I'm going to be on the road, so it won't always be this boring backdrop behind me, but we'll see if I can get Joe Nearman on to talk about this.
Just make sure that family's running into the hotel room now.
What I'm going to do here, oh, Barnes is back.
We're going to bring the party on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
There was one super chat that I nearly missed, and it was from Pat Matt PCP says, much love from Nashville, guys.
Any thoughts on the ACLU suing to form a class that includes the unborn children of illegals?
Could you see this backfiring to benefit pro-life groups?
Interesting that they're claiming those are persons now.
Your mic seems a little bit lower, Robert.
We'll tinker with that when we get into Viva BarnesLaw.locals.com.
Everyone, you got the link.
And let me do a few things because I am way behind on the tipped questions there.
As we start to do the migration on over, let me bring these up here.
Aunt M, I'm just going to cut this sooner than later.
So if you want to come over to Viva Barnes, oh, we got a raid.
We got to raid.
Encryptus, do we do pick anybody?
We'll raid them while I read these.
Robert, Julie Kelly on Steve Bannon's show yesterday said okay, go for it.
Along with the ACLU and other organizations, has already started a class action lawsuit representing states that said they would be negatively impacted by redefining birthright citizenship, not to include children of illegal immigrants born here.
How likely are they to succeed?
What does it mean for the executive order?
I mean, the executive order is going to be effectively negated by them allowing class actions and statewide suits to go forward.
That's what's likely to happen.
So we'll be another year away from them ever answering the birthright citizenship question, but it'll be effectively negated in terms of federal public policy.
And that was sort of the institutional compromise was they would shut down universal injunctions, but they would give them other tools.
And this is what Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas were complaining about.
They're like, you're still going to allow bogus class actions.
You're still going to allow states to sue when they don't have real standing to bring these kind of claims under associational third-party standing doctrines that far exceed what should be brought.
So unfortunately, that's why it wasn't a complete victory.
It could have and should have been.
But at least it was the victory that Trump needed to happen.
We got Jules J. Jean Sonny Hostin's husband being involved in Rico.
I heard about that.
I hadn't followed it too much.
NetJess, now that Tom Tillis is out of North Carolina, I would like to reiterate my thought.
Representative Greg Murphy would make a gray senator, solid voting record.
Gray 101 says, what happened to the Big Beautiful Bills?
No more income tax and no more tax on tips.
We got that.
They did reduce the tax on tips, but it's not as good as it could have been because the Senate's the Senate.
Oh, Slinks, where to stay in Chattanooga for the 1776?
Sending out a notice of restaurants, places to visit, places to stay, whole thing to everybody that's coming to the 1776 Law Center event weekend of August 15th, mid-August here in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Behavior Panel will be there.
Chase Hughes, Greg Hartley, Scott Rouse, all excellent.
Richard Barris will be in town to go over various polling data and how to run for office.
We'll have a FOIA panel.
We'll also have how to use the Freedom of Information Act.
We'll have additional, my brother will be in town for a political philosophy conversation and discussion.
So a bunch of fun educational panels.
They'll each be about, you know, it'll be probably one to five on Saturday, followed by a barbecue buffet dinner cooked with some friends of the family that are actually providing that.
And then probably 10 to 2 on Saturday, we'll do a brunch with some additional good Chattanooga things in there.
So for folks that are planning, they can head back after that.
We'll raise the funds for 1776 cases, the case, the case, the case, important freedom and liberty cases all around the world.
And now we're doing it.
We're going over to locals, people.
So I'm going to hit this.
Local supporters, I'll be live all week.
Robert, do you have any special appearances coming up this week?
No, they won't be active on it.
We won't have a bourbon appearance on Monday.
That's the beautiful.
But we'll be back with bourbons on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at Viva Bourbon.locals.com.
Amazing.
Everybody, go to the website, merch, Viva Fry, Louis the Lobster Kids Book.
▲
Export Selection