Viva & Barnes - Ep. 271: Elon Musk Creates New Party? Big Beautiful Bill PASSES! Diddy Cover-Up? AND MORE!

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 6, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:33:10

Ep. 271: Elon Musk Creates New Party? Big Beautiful Bill PASSES! Diddy Cover-Up? AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, before we begin this evening with Viva and Barnes' Law for the People, I shall play you the difference between propaganda and reality.
	What you are looking at is the new Prime Minister of Canada, Mark J. Carney, three passport carrying globalist Whoor, wearing a cowboy hat at some place in Calgary.
	I don't know where it is exactly.
	The Stampede.
	Listen to this.
	Propaganda versus reality.
	Maybe it's summer.
	making friends crushing cans holding hands knows my skoka Please welcome the Right Honorable Mark Cardi.
	Bring it into the camp.
	Oh my god, everyone's booing.
	Is that the wildest contrast of Gobelian Nazi propaganda to reality?
	What I love especially, the slow motion.
	He's a hero.
	He's a god among men.
	It's the Bill Clinton lip bite.
	Oh, right there.
	Oh, yeah, determination.
	He bites his lip as he looks at the crowd, the adoring crowd, playing some country music.
	I don't know what it is.
	Muskoka's in Canada, so I assume it's Canadian country music.
	And I posted this, or at least I replied to another tweet, and someone jokingly said, or maybe they knew before I did, yeah, they had to dub over the booze.
	And I'm like, all right, I'm going to go find the footage.
	It wasn't the footage of the exact same event, whatever it was, based on the woman who he was with or the different time of the same event.
	They literally booed that globalist whore to such a degree that the only useful footage they could get out of it was 12 seconds in super slow-mo with dubbed over audio of some music that I hope they got the rights to, but I'm going to go see if we get copy claimed on Commitube.
	Good evening.
	It's Sunday night.
	And so you know what the deal is, people.
	We're going to talk law and have some fun with Robert Barnes.
	What was I going to say?
	If you're new to the channel, and especially if you're watching on Commitube, make sure that you feed that algorithm, but especially make sure that you go to that pinned link on top and watch this on the free speech platform of Rumble.
	Viva Fry on Rumble, VivaFry on Twitter, VivabarnesLaw.locals.com for the best above average law community out there.
	Viva Fry for some merch.
	This is the Sunday night show where we talk about a whole hell of a lot of stuff, and we've got a whole hell of a lot of stuff to talk about tonight.
	But before we get too far into it, I do want to thank our sponsor of the evening.
	And in so doing, I shall bring up their beautiful website so you can see the product that they offer, which is Venice.ai, by the way.
	It's AI stuff.
	And I was listening to Joe Rogan jogging today.
	Who was he talking to?
	A Latvian professor.
	I forget the guy's name now.
	And it's flipping amazing.
	And you're going to understand where this is going.
	Sam Altman said that ChatGPT will get to know you over your own life.
	As in to say, ChatGPT and the other invasive ones that steal your data will know you better than your wife knows you.
	We'll see where that goes.
	ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA selling their board, sitting on their board right now.
	Ed Snowden called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
	Alexa listens to us and recommends products based on our conversations.
	Meta retargets us on our browsing and engagement history.
	Why do we assume AI is going to be any different?
	It's actually kind of amazing.
	We were talking with my wife and she started getting some advertisements for skin marks.
	And I'm like, did you Google that?
	And she says, no.
	I think she may have gotten an email or two, which wouldn't resolve any of the problem.
	It took us all far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data in the last decade.
	And here we are with the problem, which we're going to get into tonight, by the way, on some other issues.
	OpenAI has hinted that they might start requiring their users to provide government-issued ID.
	I can imagine most of us would not feel comfortable with that.
	Open source AI models, Venice AI, by the way, it's quite interesting product.
	It doesn't steal your data or sell it.
	It generates images.
	It's very cool, actually.
	Let me bring back to the website right here.
	Right now.
	It generates images, doesn't steal your data, doesn't sell your data, safer to use.
	It's kind of, I guess, if you're going to use AI, it's the thing to use right now.
	And if you go over to the website, you will see all of this.
	And if you click on the link below, you will see all of this.
	Go to the sponsor.
	Link is in the description.
	Use promo code VIVA.
	Gets you 20% off a pro plan.
	And it is AI images that you want without the risk of selling your data and having AI scrub your emails, go through your information, and basically know you better than you know yourself and then sell that data to everybody else.
	The link is in the description.
	And thank you very much for making this show possible.
	People, we've got one hell of an episode tonight.
	We're going to talk about Google unlawfully collecting your data, selling it, getting a massive fine.
	We're going to talk about, I'm still not done taking the victory lap yet on the P. Diddy trial turning out exactly as we thought it was going to turn out.
	And Elon Musk actually went ahead and did it.
	And I was talking with Barnes very briefly before the show tonight.
	And he's not convinced it's a fruitless endeavor, but we're going to get into it in a bit.
	Robert, when you're ready, come on in here.
	Everybody, make sure that you hit subscribe, that you are subscribed, that you're dropping comments in the hold on one second.
	Sorry, I got distracted a couple of times.
	It's Viva Fry, not Viva Fry.
	Yes, it is Fry like Pie Heights, half of my last name phonetically, which means German, Pie Heights, Freedom in German.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Steer here in Tennessee, got my Captain America hat on in honor of both the 4th of July Independence Day here in the United States, which apparently Ted Cruz thought that meant happy Israel Day.
	A little surprise, but he did say he was running for the Senate for Israel.
	So, I guess so.
	And then we have Bill Crystal, who thinks that the tin cup dictator, Zelensky, is the best representative of the founders.
	No, no, he's the best representative of the people we overthrew on the Declaration of Independence.
	A man who's not been elected to office, who rules by martial law, who suspended all opposition press, all opposition political parties, all opposition speech, tortured and murdered an American journalist, Gonzalo Lira, in Ukraine, simply because he didn't like his reporting on the war.
	Bill Crystal was identifying why he is a commie at heart.
	But in other words, the United States also playing Mexico today in the Gold Cup, where Americans are often sometimes shocked that the majority of the fans are likely going to be cheering for Mexico there in Houston today.
	I'm going to bring it up.
	If this is not the actual screen grab, just make sure correct me.
	Yeah, here it is.
	This is it because I'm trying to find the tweet, but I found the screen grab first.
	Ted Cruz actually put this out on his government account.
	And look, it's not to pardon anti-Semitism.
	You can certainly understand how people are saying there's something abnormal here where Ted Cruz on the 4th of July.
	It would be like if people on Israeli Independence Day kept saying, God bless America.
	That would make it, it might make a little more sense because of how much money we sent there.
	But still, it'd be a little weird if you're an Israeli.
	It's like, you know, you love Israel.
	That's your country, not America.
	Ted Cruz sitting here saying, hey, let's talk about the Israelis on July 4th.
	I'm going to read it just for the podcast version of this, but happy 4th of July.
	Today is also the 47th anniversary of the daring Entebbe raid.
	Do you know what that was?
	I mean, I follow geopolitics and I didn't know what the heck that was.
	I know the name, but I don't know enough about that.
	State that's remember the Alamo, where my fellow Tennesseans helped create the independence of Texas, people like Davy Crockett.
	And he doesn't remember that.
	He remembers the, do you remember the 47th anniversary of the Entebbe raid with Israel?
	I was only five at the time, but I remember being inspired by the amazing courage of the IDF team that rescued the hostages and killed the terrorists.
	I thought that's a very Texan foreign policy.
	He thought that at five years old.
	I've got to say this.
	I've got to say this.
	This reads like a tweet that someone was paid to put out there.
	It's like in the movie Popstar.
	Mac sent it over.
	Say, here you go, Teddy Boy.
	Time to stick that up there.
	No, it's like saying, hey, I know it's 4th of July, guys.
	You better thank Israel.
	And it's so crazy.
	Had it been Canada, it would be crazy.
	Had it been the UK, it would have been crazy.
	Had he thanked the EU, it would have been crazy.
	It's like the scene in Popstar when the Hunter the Hunted at the end, when he's doing the video music awards with Mariah Carey, starts getting into his sponsor pitch.
	And he's like, you're doing this on stage now?
	Like, dude, this is not the time or the place.
	Happy 4th of July.
	And the IDF is amazing.
	Crazy.
	Guess what this little book is?
	The poets, the poems of Abraham Lincoln.
	Is that an original?
	It looks actually quite old.
	So that's the book of the week.
	And then the cigar is a Padron 1964 anniversary cigar.
	It's a nice little cigar.
	Enjoying it all here in the great state of Tennassi.
	Well, we're going to be seeing each other within basically a month now.
	Yes, yeah.
	The mid-August weekend, August 16th and 17th in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the 1776 Law Center inaugural conference, retreat, and fundraiser.
	We're going to have tons of great guests.
	Chase Hughes about how to use Jedi mind control.
	Scott Rouse on how to use body language in negotiations.
	Greg Hartley, the kind of guy the military calls in when they need to stop a terror event from occurring overnight.
	We'll teach you about how to use these in interview techniques, interrogation components, depositions, just any kind of interview.
	My brother will be in town to talk about the political philosophy behind the Great Declaration of Independence, which was revolutionary in many aspects that are still underappreciated in some parts of the world today.
	Viva and I will be there to talk about the law and politics and the future of podcasting in that arena.
	The Lexi Anderson, young lawyer who's been through it, will be talking about the lessons of a young lawyer in the freedom space.
	Richard Barris and election wizard will be in town to talk about how to run for office.
	And I'll be doing masterclasses on FOIA, how to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out what the government has on you or other important information.
	Maybe Pam Blondie, Pam Barbie, will get around to actually putting in the right FOIA DOJ people because Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch are still having to sue to get records of Joe Biden censorship, which is being hidden by Pam Bondi's DOJ.
	But all that and more, and fundraiser, we support the Rittenhouse case, Kyle Rittenhouse, the Covington Kids cases, Brooke Jackson, Robert Kennedy, Roger Veer, the front end of political freedom, financial freedom, medical freedom, personal freedom, food freedom, all of that at 1776 Law Center.
	I'm going to send it to a new third-party candidate sponsor and say, if you want to run on an America party, here's a freedom platform to be promoting Elon.
	Let me, I want to share one link with everybody.
	A member of our community is going through chemotherapy right now, Kimmy Hunt.
	And if anybody can help, I won't get into the habit of doing this because then it's going to be everybody's going to be putting up.
	She's a sweetheart.
	She has a smile like my sister Martha, is battling difficulties with cancer, not looking to raise tons of money like has gone to the...
	I was listening to the Mark Hopis autobiography, and there were like six chapters of his going through cancer and talking about the red devil on the second chemo session where they inject you with toxic stuff that is so toxic.
	The administrators need to wear these suits.
	It was just horrible, horrendous.
	So that's it.
	If you can support Kimmy and help her out, it's, you know, when I was listening to this, it's like rich or poor, when you get sick, you're sick.
	The only difference is rich, you can get, you know, timely, the best medical care, the best doctors.
	And when you need great food, we're doing a fundraiser for the one and only the Amish farmer, Amos Miller, who, Mr. President, has never had to hire or wanted to hire an illegal immigrant in his life.
	Good small farmers don't need to hire illegals.
	They do a lot of the work themselves.
	But you can support Amos Miller with a fundraiser that I have pinned up at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	You'd get yourself some delicious, delish cookies.
	You can mix in maybe with a little bit of Amos Miller's raw milk that makes it even better.
	That is also a fundraising option out there for those people that want to continue to support because, yes, indeed, he is still being harassed by both the state government of Pennsylvania and the federal government.
	Even though Brooke Rollins, the Secretary of Agriculture, has reached out.
	I'm hopeful that maybe she'll take corrective remedial action.
	I would say as a whole, the Department of Agriculture has not to date lived up.
	We'll be talking tonight about the screw worm debacle that might happen on Trump's watch if he allows Mexican cattle to raid into the country.
	Then our American cattle farmers are going to be put under, not only put at risk, but America's health will be at risk.
	We have that.
	We have the big, beautiful bill, or how beautiful is it?
	Maybe a little bit of a mixture mixed in there.
	We got Elon's third party.
	What does that look like legally, politically on a go-forward basis?
	P. Diddy, I think somebody, somebody, oh, I'm talking to him, predicted the outcome of this case right on Megan Kelly, no less, that literally nobody was talking about.
	How that happened, the Comey cover-up continues.
	We got the Supreme Court.
	This is when they wrap up all their petitions for cert and they grant a bunch and they remand them consistent with a range of cases.
	And then you get some dissents from the denial of cert that tell other litigants what cases to pursue.
	And they had to step back in while crazy judges continue to issue crazy rulings.
	One of those rulings was a judicial coup continues as now they're using the class action remedy that Scalia and Alito, not Scalia, but Alito warned about.
	And we'll be talking about that.
	We've got the census legislation being promoted by Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	We've got the coercion.
	Wisconsin Supreme Court was dealing with when the coercion defense is applicable, when it isn't.
	We've got a plot against Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., disclosed by the Brownstone Institute, and might implicate a certain couple of influencers.
	We'll get to that in just a bit.
	Robert, so we'll start with the story of the hour.
	I forget what movie, I think it was from Jurassic Park, that crazy son of a bitch.
	He had did it.
	He actually went through with it.
	A while back, Elon had put out a tweet, I say a while, June 30th, that said if this abomination of a bill gets passed through, the next day he's starting America Party as a viable third option in this political system.
	The bill goes through.
	Elon actually goes out and files whatever FEC forms were required to file this.
	I don't know how it works exactly.
	Hopefully you'll clarify for the audience because you file the FEC.
	There's no candidate for this party.
	Is it sort of like, is it an independent political party or is it more like a political action committee?
	But the bottom line, the irony of it, and I say this without judgment, is that you got a South African who's starting this party and the treasurer is of Born in India, but is the CEO or CFO, an executive at Tesla, also Tesla Motors India.
	And they started this party.
	I've seen a mixed response.
	I see a lot of people, people don't need to hate Elon Musk in order to disagree with this decision.
	I don't hate him.
	He's done amazing stuff with Tesla, with Tesla, with Tesla as well.
	But with X, I mean, I think the election is owed in part, not entirely, to him, Chris Pavlovsky at Rumble, obviously Trump himself, God for saving Trump, and the alliance that he formed subsequently with Tulsi and RFK Jr.
	Some people are saying this is an outright betrayal, stabbing him in the back.
	It's going to split the vote.
	Democrats are going to win in 2026.
	I personally don't think that, I don't know who it would draw more from, if it's Republicans or Democrats.
	I think there's a good argument that he might draw from Democrats when you got Mark Cuban saying he wants to be part of this new movement.
	I just think it's stupid and that you don't start a new political party instead of just working the best candidates within the existing populist movement that is MAGA.
	He filed these FEC filings.
	I can pull them up if we need to, but what does it mean, starting another party?
	It's not the third, it's the sixth party.
	You got Libertarian, Constitutional, or the Constitution Party, Green Party, Democrat, Republican, and now the America Party?
	Well, and you also have a range of parties by states, because in the United States, even though you register for FEC purposes federally, although the ballot access rules are determined at the state level.
	So the FEC is kind of a formality to help raise money for a political party.
	So it's really just complying with FEC rules.
	That's all that is.
	And so that's why he can list himself as the only possible candidate at the moment because they aren't endorsing another candidate.
	He's just starting a third independent party.
	For the purposes of future either policy or like, I mean, the most aggressive version of this, New York City and New York State.
	New York has a bunch of small parties that have guaranteed ballot access that often work together to support certain coalition candidates across New York.
	So legally, what this registration is, is just providing for the federal fundraising capacity to be within the federal laws of fundraising for those purposes.
	That's kind of it.
	Okay, and strictly for the American Party.
	So could they raise money for the Libertarian Party if they so decide?
	Okay.
	Yeah, they can only raise money here for the American Party.
	So it's more of a formality than it is a required precondition for much of anything in terms of getting on the ballot.
	If the goal is to get on the ballot, that's a different...
	What he has said is the general principles of the party, the purposes and reasons and predicates behind why he's starting the party.
	And otherwise said it's going to be distilled and focused in where its resources are dedicated.
	So he's not talking about putting a candidate for office everywhere.
	There may be places where he cross-endors either Republican or Democratic candidates like they do in New York.
	The key here is, now I would recommend he hire better political people than, in my opinion, he's hired in the past.
	Now, because he's starting a third party, a lot of the institutional people won't get near him anyway, which is good for him.
	If he brings in the right political people that know how to work, they know how to get on the ballot, that know how third parties work historically and all of that, then my general view is contrary to the conventional wisdom, third parties have actually, I've represented more third parties and independent candidates than any lawyer in the country.
	And in that capacity, you often deal with the history of the third parties and its impact on politics.
	The popular perception is third parties have not made, been able to have sustained continued electoral success since the Republican Party.
	The Democratic Party was initially a new party formed by principally Andrew Jackson.
	You can argue Thomas Jefferson, but really Andrew Jackson is who consolidated it by a New Yorker that helped do it for him.
	A lot of the modern tools of political campaigning we get from that organization of the then Democrat Party, the Jacksonian Party.
	Then the next third party that really took over was a party dedicated to abolition and starting the early 1850s, and that was the Republican Party, which quickly became one of the two major parties after 1860.
	Now, since then, no third party has had sustained electoral success.
	Where they have had success is in shifting the Overton window, changing what policies get debated.
	If you look at it, if Elon focuses on a policy-driven agenda, then in fact, he could actually have striking success.
	Because if you look back, almost every major reform that has ever happened in American history is due to third parties, including the Republican Party itself.
	Started as a third party dedicated abolition.
	Abolition only came about because of the Republican Party.
	The Greenback Party and the Populist Party made radical reformations possible at the state and federal level for 30 to 40 years.
	The Progressive Party and the Bullmoose Party, now I don't necessarily agree with some of the ideology of those parties, but you can't dispute their political efficacy because they ended up reshaping our government into the bureaucratic administrative state we have today littered with money for NGOs.
	That started with third-party movements, people like fighting Bob LaFollette in 1924, people like Teddy Roosevelt's The Bullmoose Movement in 1912, all of those components.
	Then the Huey Long and Upton Sinclair and other movements that were in the early 1930s, including the Communist Party and the Socialist Party, moved FDR to the left on a lot of labor policy, started out more of what would be called today a centrist, and then moved much more into the left positions because of the challenges from both left populist and left socialist that was becoming very popular.
	Upton Sinclair got a good number of votes in 1912, again later on.
	And Sinclair's success helped boost the permissibility, you might say, of socialism as an ideology and a patronage in the United States.
	Then you have George Corley Wallace, 1968, American Independent Party.
	Did he win?
	No.
	Did he send it to the electoral to Congress like he wanted?
	No.
	Did he help change the debate and shape the debate and probably pave the path for Ronald Reagan in 1980?
	You're darn right he did.
	A lot of good people would argue that.
	John Anderson's campaign didn't make a whole bit of difference in 1980.
	Roger Stone helped take care of that with some Roy Cohn and some other folks up in New York.
	Roger can tell that story himself.
	It's a classic Roger Stone kind of story.
	They might have even been meeting with a certain Papa Trump at the time to help Reagan win in New York by making sure Anderson was on certain ballots there in New York.
	But you go forward and you get Ross Perot in 1992 and again, 1996.
	The Reform Party didn't last for very long, but Perot made a major impact.
	You look at his anti-war position, his trade and tariffs position are now Donald Trump's positions as part of the MAGA movement in the majority of the country.
	He helped start to put that into fruition.
	In addition, last time we had a balanced budget, William Jefferson Clinton, how did that happen?
	Probably because of how much pressure was put on him by the success of Ross Perot's budget hawk campaign of 1992, because that was his third issue.
	That was of his trilogy of issues.
	Anti-war wanted protectionism on trade.
	And then the third one was we need to balance the budgets.
	He did these 30-minute little things, a little, I don't know if you remember those.
	He had these little screens up.
	He needs 30-minute infomercials.
	Okay, here you go, right here.
	You look at this.
	See, look at this.
	I can't do the Texas accent, right?
	But you look at this right here.
	And they say, see this budget unsustainable.
	See, look at this.
	So third parties, contrary to conventional wisdom, have often had substantial political success.
	Policy window.
	Electoral success?
	No.
	Policy success?
	Yes.
	What of the criticism that the only successful third party candidate was Ross Perot effectively got Clinton elected?
	They're wrong.
	They're dead wrong.
	I followed that in lifetime.
	Perot dropped out.
	Who did almost all of his votes go to when he dropped out in the summer of 1992?
	They almost all went to Bill Clinton.
	If you do a deep dive, this is where I have a disagreement with Richard Barris and others.
	If you do a deep dive, Perot voters lean Clinton.
	They're reformist voters.
	They were outsider voters.
	They were anti-establishment voters.
	They were voters who were anti-war.
	People forget Trump didn't, Clinton didn't run on free trade.
	Clinton ran on, you know, care about, don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
	You know, I love the American people.
	Did he get nearly 20% of the population?
	Oh, yeah.
	In fact, Perot had multiple times led.
	And so this is, in fact, Perot's, here's another, you know who else Ross Perot's campaign inspired?
	A certain Donald John Trump, who would run for the Reform Party ticket in 2000 and decided to drop out.
	But ultimately, he put the idea in his head.
	He's like, because for a long period of time, had Perot not dropped out in the summer, he came back in in the fall.
	Had he not dropped out in the summer, he was leading the polls.
	He was going to be the next president of the United States.
	People wanted reform.
	They just didn't want the Clinton version of it, but they wanted reform.
	But Poppy Bush was dead.
	There was no scenario in which Poppy Bush was winning.
	There was none.
	Zero Zilta Zunka.
	Nada.
	And it was a myth of the right, the Republican right.
	Oh, it's only because Ross Perot ran.
	No, no.
	Because you went to war that was unpopular ultimately in the end, despite its popularity at its peak.
	Because you promised no new taxes and you delivered new taxes.
	Because it was the Bush family ideology that never had majority support in American history with any consistency.
	And so they were just looking for who was going to change candidate.
	They preferred Perot to Clinton until the CIA and some other people terrified Perot into dropping out for a summer.
	But hold on, Kay, hold on.
	I'm too young to remember this in real time.
	He dropped out, but still got popular votes.
	So what happens?
	He dropped out in June, came back in in September because he couldn't take all the attack.
	Oh, you're a quitter, Ross.
	You're a quitter.
	And there was a big headline in Time magazine.
	Ross, admittedly, I was only 12 or 13 at the time, but I don't remember a lick of this.
	I remember, oh, I was betting.
	I was 17 years old at the time.
	I was betting on this, betting on that.
	Anybody who would take my bet, then I would go to work for Clinton in the White House in the summer of 1993 for a brief period of time.
	Showed up.
	the guy who was always there wasn't there one Sunday, showed up to deliver the news report to a certain individual, and then that individual ended up dead the following Tuesday.
	Maybe he was dead a little bit before then, but that's another story for another day.
	You can go to the hush hushes at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com as part of the great content we deliver there.
	So the short answer is Elon can shift the policy window if he distills the focus and uses the New York model of using third parties to only run a third party candidate when the two major party candidates are utterly unacceptable.
	Otherwise, find cross-coalition, cross-party endorsements where you can get some policy commitment out of that candidate, either the Republican or Democratic side.
	And you're on not only the Republican Party ballot line, you're on the American Party ballot line.
	So the second aspect is to focus on shifting the Overton window in terms of policy.
	If he focuses on that, he has the resources and the X platform to actually make that very achievable in the United States, much more so than a lot of people are responding.
	And if those are saying, oh, he'll just get Trump beat, or the Republicans beat, be honest with you, that's on the Republicans.
	They've decided to basically say, screw you to most libertarians.
	And so far, they've only partially delivered in small levels for libertarians.
	And they've been like, here you go, libertarian.
	What do you think they're going to do?
	You think they're going to come and pat you on the back and say thank you?
	I mean, you know, come on.
	It's a realistic risk that you face when you decide to ignore your coalition partner.
	And when they get mad at you, you threaten them with spending lots of money to primary them, like Donald Trump is right now doing to Thomas Massey.
	Or you threaten to stick the U.S. government on them, like Donald Trump is promising to do to Elon Musk.
	This is bad form and bad politics by Donald Trump.
	This isn't the art of the deal.
	It's the art of idiocy.
	So Trump has no one to blame but himself for the rise of the America Party.
	See, the question is this.
	You start the America Party.
	My question was, why not co-opt or opt into the Libertarian Party?
	Or if they're too wacky, go to the Constitution.
	He doesn't want to be stuck with anybody else's rules.
	And anybody that knows the Libertarian Party knows that a bunch of elite idiots run the party.
	There's a bunch of good people in the Libertarian Party, but they're mostly dominated by elite idiots.
	And that's why nobody wants to get anywhere near them.
	This is why the Libertarian Party endorsed COVID restrictions in 2020.
	I mean, it was the most mind-boggling thing to the normie libertarian.
	They're like, how is our party this out of touch?
	And I say this to someone, I've represented the Libertarian Party.
	I represented the Green Party.
	I've represented the Peace and Freedom Party.
	I've represented the American Independent Party.
	I've represented the Constitution Party.
	I've represented the taxpayer, represented the mole.
	But I'm all for small third parties that are smart.
	And if Elon is smart, because they move the Overton window, they reform American politics.
	They put ideas that won't break through, finally allow them to break through.
	Now, there's no, and here's the thing.
	If you're Trump, there's easy ways to win these voters over.
	Just give them something to cheer for rather than threatening them, booing them, or trying to remove them from influence.
	I mean, there's a smart way and a stupid way.
	So far, Trump has gone the stupid way, and he's paying, and he's getting a payback for it.
	He deserves it.
	You do something stupid.
	This is what happens.
	This is why I like third parties and independent candidates.
	They hold the major parties to account.
	And for those who are wondering what you're talking about, if they hadn't been following over the last week, Trump, you know, they're having a spat.
	Trump talking about it was Bannon talking about nationalizing SpaceX, but Trump was Attacking Elon is not the most productive path to be on.
	Attack Bill Gates.
	Attack George Soros.
	Attack our real adversaries.
	Not a guy who is more often our ally than our adversary, and Elon Musk.
	And you have been loyal to, they say loyal to is the wrong word.
	You're loyal to the intellect and principle of Thomas Massey.
	Thomas Massey is the same.
	Thomas Massey is the best member of Congress by a long mile.
	I don't care who think.
	Now, see, that's where Elon's being smart.
	Elon is saying he's going to back Thomas Massey.
	So it's not just an American Party.
	There, he's going to use the America Party and others to back Thomas Massey.
	Massey has been a great independent advocate his whole life.
	Look, here's the thing with principled libertarians.
	They're annoying as crap when you want to get something done, something practical or pragmatic.
	There's no doubt about that.
	Same with Rand Paul.
	But you know what?
	When the latest surveillance state effort comes across, they're your number one advocate against that.
	When a new stupid war comes out, they're the number one advocate against it.
	When the COVID protocols are being forced down our throat, who is our number one advocate in the House?
	Thomas Massey.
	Who is our number one advocate in the Senate?
	Rand Paul.
	The last people I'm going to abandon are libertarians.
	I don't care if Trump does.
	That's on Trump.
	Trump mismanaged and mishandled the Elon Musk relationship.
	That's become bloody obvious at this point.
	Do I think Elon Musk can do him fatal damage?
	No.
	But if Trump does suffer politically, it'll be because he mishandled it and he's still got plenty of time to fix it.
	Reach out to libertarians on food freedom by freeing up the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	Don't allow screw worm-infected cattle come across the border.
	Make sure Merweather Farms' social media account is back reinstated.
	They're just reporting the truth.
	For small farmers across the country, you're complaining.
	Don't worry about, Mr. President, worry about giving amnesty for special illegals for big corporate agriculture and your billionaire buddies in the hospital, in the hotel leisure industry.
	Instead, make sure small farmers can meaningfully compete by reinstating the exemption from federal law that existed from 1906 to 1968 for if you bought food directly from a small farmer.
	Stop harassing Amos Miller.
	Stop harassing other small farmers.
	Get off your ear and do something like you promised to do to make America healthy again.
	Thomas Cassey is a principled advocate.
	He said it great on Theo Vaughn.
	He said there's two kinds of TDS.
	The TDS that obsessively hates him, that won't respect it when he's doing a policy they themselves have advanced and advocated for.
	They will turn against it like Justice Kagan did on the Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions.
	He said the other version of TDS says Trump is so perfect.
	Trump is the literal incarnation of Jesus that anything you say second-guessing him makes you evil, makes you the enemy.
	You know, this is the cat turd.
	Cat turd is as badly infected with TDS as anybody on the planet.
	It says a different version of TDS.
	Thomas Massey is one of our most principled, honorable members of Congress we have had for 50 years.
	And those of us that care about freedom and liberty know there's no better advocate for it than Thomas Massey in the House of Representatives.
	And I brought up one of those comments earlier, which says, I'm out of here.
	You're bashing Trump too much.
	Like, if you can't hear me, yeah, go cry.
	Go cry in the corner, my friend.
	You're going to get our honest, independent advice with my own opinion.
	You don't have to agree with my opinion.
	You can disagree with it entirely.
	But what I'm not in favor of is being in denial.
	I agree with Massey.
	We should keep to our principles.
	And when Trump isn't on the same page as our principles, we should criticize the president for doing so.
	Like some of us said he needed to do when he was deferring to Anthony Fauci at the beginning of COVID.
	Who was right?
	The people who said, trust Trump, go along with Fauci, or those of us that said, no, Trump, he's going to lead you down a primrose path of peril.
	Let me bring this up.
	I want you to flesh this out because I'm not sure that many people are paying attention to this.
	The reason why I sort of know what's going on with, look at these TOPS ads that I'm getting.
	The reason why I know about this is because I love watching videos of butt fly removals and mango worm extractions.
	There is this thing called the screw worm, which I'm fairly certain it's a mosquito lays an egg and it goes in the skin of the cattle.
	And there's a risk of it crossing over the border from Mexico into America and infecting American cattle.
	What is the issue?
	Like, where is Trump now not backtracking, but not necessarily.
	Well, according to the small farmers, they are reconsidering.
	So, you know, when Brooke Rollins came in, there are a lot of promises and most of those promises have not been met.
	So we'll see if she starts turning it around.
	Now, I know we got some criticism when we said it was her idea for Trump to promote basically functioning.
	He doesn't want to call it amnesty, but that's what it is.
	Amnesty for illegals that work on farms and in the hotel leisure industry.
	And we said Brooke Rollins was the source of this very bad idea.
	And guess what?
	And we got a bunch of heat.
	You don't know that.
	You're making that up.
	Well, who did President Donald Trump specifically refer to him as giving him the idea of his Iowa speech on Friday?
	Brooke Rollins.
	So as so the it was the other thing, remember she was going to do, there was, they were going to, the FDA and the USDA, they're all filled with saboteurs, right?
	Unless you mass purge the personnel in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, you were going to have a disaster.
	That retarded boss Hogg, Sonny Perdue, her Trump predecessor, was an utter disaster.
	And he helped personally guarantee the loss of Georgia thanks to how he mishandled, mismanaged that.
	And the guy looks, by the way, just like Boss Hog, just really dumber.
	Boss Hogg was at least smart on the Dukes of Hazard.
	Some people have a meme of the Dukes of Injustice, and they got Pam Blondie and Cash Patel and Dan Bungino on it.
	So we'll see how that works out.
	But so one, the fact that personnel wasn't meaningfully changed and dramatic policy implications made a lot of us very concerned.
	And I knew people in Texas that vouched for her.
	And again, I respect her for reaching out to us on the Amos Miller case.
	So maybe we'll see progress.
	But it didn't start out good.
	And the initial talk was that they were going to use, they were going to basically go in.
	And, you know, we should have some good fun.
	We've had Joel Salatin on.
	Obviously, the Amish farmers can't appear, but there's some other farmers that can appear.
	We should do some sidebars with farmers, small farmers, talking about what's going on, why it's not being well served, why the Trump administration is failing small farms and whoring for big ag.
	That's what they're doing right now.
	They need to reverse course.
	So it's interesting you mentioned it.
	There's a farm up the street called Coastal Pasture Farms.
	It's run by a veteran who served in Afghanistan.
	I did an interview.
	We go to the farm every Friday, and I interviewed him.
	I talked to him.
	He's like, the shit that he gets for trying to operate a small farm in Florida, the free state of Florida, the red state of Florida.
	He says the administrative hurdles are beyond comprehension.
	They get fines left, right, and center.
	And he's like, if you know anybody in the DeSantis administration, tell them to stop giving me such a hard time to produce honey, free-range chicken eggs, healthy meat that's not hormone, injected.
	And it's crazy.
	It's like you wouldn't think that anyone in Florida would be having these issues, a small farmer.
	Developers can pollute the water all they want.
	If he wants to dispose of blood, it becomes like a biohazard issue.
	They've tried to industrialize, scale up agriculture, which doesn't work.
	And it's dangerous to food freedom.
	It's dangerous to our food supply.
	It's dangerous to all of it.
	And so initially she was going to do this max vaccination of chicken, which would have been of chickens, which would have been a disaster.
	Robert Kennedy stepped in, intervened, and stopped that from occurring to his credit.
	But she was marching forward with it.
	Then now what is it that there's a bunch of screw worm infected cattle?
	And if they open it up, what they would do is force vaccinate.
	They were talking about using mRNA vaccines, all kinds of other problems on the cattle, tag the cattle, electronically trace the cattle.
	It could create a mass surveillance state.
	Basically, the only people this advantages is foreign, big foreign operations and big ag.
	It hurts the small farmer.
	It hurts the American people's quality of food supply, dependency and reliability of that food supply, the security of that food supply.
	So it should not be happening.
	And initially, it looked like they were not going to be allowing any of this cattle in from outside the country until it was properly labeled, which is a big problem by itself.
	They constantly, you go to the store, you think you're buying something that is from an American farmer when it usually isn't.
	This labeling designation, they badly eviscerated it.
	The amount of stuff that we get that we think there's no reason why it doesn't come from America, cucumbers from Canada, which is not so much of a problem, and stuff from Mexico, where no reason not to get it here.
	I don't know how they're going to prevent the infiltration of this screw worm.
	The farmers might have to get into that.
	You just have to block all cattle and all food from those places, which is what they were doing.
	And now they're reconsidering.
	And I can tell you why they're reconsidering.
	Big Ag sees it as a market edge.
	That simple.
	They see it as a market edge because it would impose a bunch of burdens on small farmers that they wouldn't be able to sustain.
	And the regulatory scale, what was supposed to be a disadvantage for big farms and help small farmers has now been flipped on its head.
	So for those that don't know, when food reform laws originally passed in America, all these laws regulating and governing the importation, exportation of food, the labeling of food, the marketing of food, the selling of food, the production of food, et cetera, was originally intended to never govern small farmers at all.
	It was only intended to govern big, industrialized, corporatized agriculture, where you didn't know where the food was coming from, where often you would open it up and something would be in there that wasn't even what's on the label.
	You bought corn, you ended up with kidney beans.
	Not only that, you find fingers and all Kinds of things because of Upton Sinclair's book about what was happening in the stockyards of Chicago was not a very pretty picture.
	There's still controversy about whether he was accurate or not in his depictions, but it doesn't matter.
	That book was very popular, led to the laws being passed.
	But it was intended solely to regulate corporate industrial farmers.
	It was not meant to use regulation as an edge to scale up industry and to force feed the scaled up industrialization and corporatization of food.
	So from 1906 to 1967, our federal laws exempted any food you directly purchased from a farmer.
	Then they changed that to the custom exception in 1968.
	And that custom exception was supposed to merge that with the religious exception for people who like need animals for ritual sacrifice or certain Jewish traditions, other religious traditions that believe in this, and so forth.
	But what happened is they used the regulatory empowerment to radically restrict who could get a custom exception.
	So that now the Amos Millers of the world, a man who's distributed millions of food products to tens of thousands of Americans over a quarter of a century without one single customer complaint ever, the best safety track record, the best quality track record of any farmer anywhere, Amos MillerOrganicFarm.com.
	You can still get his food luckily today, though they've tried to shut him down now for seven years running, tried to bankrupt him.
	This is a sweetheart, one of the nicest, kindest people you'll ever meet.
	He talks to random people that come up to his farm.
	You know, his wife's sweetheart, kids are all sweetheart.
	I mean, they're Amish.
	I mean, you know, when FEMA couldn't get anything done in Western North Carolina, all you really got to do, this is all FEMA should do.
	They should just have an army of Amish ready.
	You have an Amish, you know, West Texas.
	They need rebuilding.
	Just send down the Amish because the Amish will get it done.
	The Amish will get a barn built, a house built, a school built, and what you need done in weeks.
	Whereas the U.S. government, you know, busy figuring out which NGO to buy off and bribe and all the rest before anything gets done.
	So, but if food freedom is an issue where Trump has been a failure so far in his presidency, and he has a great opportunity, plenty of time to fix it, plenty of time to remedy it.
	Brooke Rollins is saying she wants to remedy it.
	Well, let's see proof of it.
	No, don't allow screw worm capital, a cattle from coming in from Mexico or anywhere else around outside the United States.
	Start caring about small farmers in terms of how labeling works.
	Restore the independent direct right to buy farm-to-table food directly from the farmer without federal restriction or regulation or permission, as overwhelming a number of Americans support, including libertarian voters, right?
	You're bleeding libertarian votes because of the budget.
	You're bleeding libertarian votes because of the strike on Iran.
	How about do you get them back by food freedom, by financial freedom, by medical freedom, by political freedom, by these kind of efforts that remind them why that it's worthwhile to choose you over the Democrats and not flirt with a third party?
	The third party.
	It presents political risk that forces one of the two parties to be honest to their own voter base.
	And this is a great opportunity.
	That's how Musk third party challenge should be used is MAGA should use it as an opportunity to remind Republican members of the House and the Senate and the White House and the cabinet, you need to honor the MAGA principles to keep those voters loyal to you.
	Otherwise, they will drift off.
	Capital that basically Elon Musk is giving every MAGA libertarian person out there, MAGA or libertarian, or both as the case may be, like Thomas Massey.
	They're giving them political capital to use to motivate the Brooke Rollins of the world, to motivate, I don't know if it's possible to motivate Pam Bondi, but if it's possible to motivate Pam Bondi, to motivate Cash Patel and Dan Bungino to pursue an agenda that's important to the libertarian and populist causes.
	Robert, before we get too far behind in the chat and before we get on to the one big, beautiful bill, which is the segue in here, let me read a bunch of these Rumble rants.
	By the way, I'll send everyone the link of my interview with Jake the Farmer.
	Check it out.
	It was amazing.
	Excel Energy is using police to install surveillance devices for Fourth Amendment searches under color of law.
	Details on my Rumble channel and Viva's X inbox.
	That's Kapo Sooth.
	Panther AI or Panther A1.
	To be fair, the raid was truly one of the worst, one of the most daring and difficult raids in modern history, worth looking into in Tebo.
	Oh, yeah, it was.
	I mean, Mossad has achieved some extraordinary things.
	By the way, it's why I become skeptical of what Netanyahu knew or didn't know.
	And why I become skeptical about whether you had to raise Grazo to the ground and couldn't do targeted assassinations is precisely because how successful and effective Mossad has been historically at precision strikes, precision assassinations.
	And intelligence.
	Yeah, the Pager assassinations or incident was a case in point.
	Maybe their complaint is they don't have Epstein on the payroll anymore, so they don't get as much intel as they would like.
	Super Buff Schaff says, Barnes, now that Lindell's case is done and Joe Altman failed two times in court to show he really was on the Antifa call.
	Also, looks like his $1,000 a day is back on.
	Is he CIA op that screwed us?
	Potentially, potentially, but don't know for sure.
	I didn't follow that.
	I didn't hear that.
	I didn't follow the details of the trial, so I can't speak to it in evidentiary detail.
	And I'm going to open up certain aspects of it.
	I think Lindell's a well-intended guy.
	No question about that.
	But I did think people were trying to infiltrate his cause that were acting in bad faith.
	I've been on with Oldman.
	I'm going to, I'll have him on and ask, ask him what's going on there.
	I won't accuse him of being CIA, I mean, what I was trying to tell all those people is that there was massive disintel operations trying to infiltrate very well-intended people.
	I have no doubt that everybody that was deeply anti-Dominion was well-intended.
	For those that don't remember, I've been a long time critic, along with Robert Kennedy, by the way, along with Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer that works with me in a lot of COVID cases, including the Brooke Jackson case, that I'm not a fan of machines, but I thought that it was a red herring because they didn't want people to look at where they were stealing the election, which was the same way the Chinese government thought about stealing the election.
	Let's create a bunch of bogus IDs and let's mail in the ballots.
	You know, I mean, the Chinese understood where the frailty was.
	No, the FBI and the CIA went to great lengths to cover it up and hide it.
	And our old pal, Michael Ellis, who's now deputy general counsel at the CIA, is being thrown under the bus by John Ratcliffe.
	He's putting the rat in Ratcliffe pretty well, effectively these days, by watering down that report.
	And he's blaming Michael Ellis.
	He's running it on DC.
	So, oh, my deputy, it wasn't your deputy counsel, rat boy.
	You got taken for a ride by Mossad, and now you decided to cover for all your corrupt agents that are still at the CIA rather than expose them.
	He wrote what was supposed to be a dramatic report.
	It was watered down.
	Credit to members of the House who were like, why are you trying to minimize the obvious criminality of John Brennan's behavior.
	But stating it in sufficient detail while trying to water it down, where people are saying it's good, this should lead to criminal recommendations, not a whitewashing and moving on.
	Dan Bongino's right on it as soon as he figures out who brought cocaine to the White House during the bite of it.
	E. Taylor67 says, The disgusting left is mocking the people killed and devastating the Texas flooding.
	The people are sick.
	I'll get you a question in that, Robert, after this.
	Ross, coming out of General Motors, received 85% of the quote, if this election were held today, Wall Street Journal poll.
	Then Network News launched coordinated hit pieces and Bill Clinton claimed he was Ross.
	Game over.
	That's from Randy Edward.
	Tropical Rocket says, Viva, there are Nile crocodiles in Florida now.
	Watch your ass.
	They're probably more down south where I was.
	I did love all the memes with the family, with the crocodile coming in front, and then all of a sudden underneath, and then from behind.
	We knew the Simpsons one was the best one.
	How Florida Man and those other and all of our great meme makers do it?
	I'll never, Captain Mike Hamilton and Telex and all the others, until we are empty, all that.
	I mean, it's amazing stuff.
	They're amazing.
	And I wonder if they use Venice.ai, the sponsor of tonight's show.
	Tropic Rocket says, have a small farmers forum here.
	That's a good idea.
	And I think we might.
	Oh, that's a very good idea.
	Yep.
	Agree, Robert, on calling things out.
	When are you, sir, going to call out what Catherine Austin Fitz calls Bobby Kennedy pushing the MRR vaccine?
	He's not.
	I recommend everybody go and listen to the full interview of Robert Kennedy with Tucker Carlson.
	And he corrects a lot of misapprehensions in that regard.
	One of my major reasons for voting for Trump is because of food freedom says so far.
	And that's critical.
	It was the number one issue.
	It was Richard Bears polled.
	And so it's a big winner that he underappreciates.
	He just does.
	Now, I know J.D. Vance has a better appreciation of it, but right now he hasn't done as, you know, now he can talk about it publicly because Thomas Massey talked about it in the Theo Vaughan interview.
	Those of us in the food freedom movement, Trump's people explicitly promised Thomas Massey was going to be secretary of agriculture.
	Then not only does he not deliver that, he instead puts a career corporate lobbyist in that position or career corporate advocate.
	That's what Brooke Rollins' reputation is.
	Again, maybe she means well.
	I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if I see her take corrective action in the near short term.
	But we'll see about that.
	Anybody thinks that, okay, you just reach out to somebody, you're going to shut them up.
	Good luck with that.
	That never works with some of us.
	For good or for bad, as Viva knows, I don't keep my mouth shut.
	But there's major improvements that can be made there and that should be made there and that need to be made there.
	And that the various libertarian unhappiness and the Elon Musk Independent Party presents an opportunity for the administration.
	Don't see it as a risk.
	See it as an opportunity.
	Seize it and you will consolidate support for your base, not lose support from your base.
	I'll read the T1990, then the next one's going to segue us into the next topic, which is the Big Beautiful Bill.
	How many of these decisions Trump is making is because of advice from the American First Policy Institute?
	A bunch.
	I mean, they're bragging about how many of them, including Brooke Rollins, are in the administration.
	And now, Sean47 says, Viva, as a Trump supporter, I am mad that he fell for going after welfare first.
	This will hurt homeless men, veteran men once again, attack the defenseless deep state budget, $450 billion, start there.
	It's one of the legitimate causes of Elon Musk's complaints.
	Now, I happen to disagree with the libertarian position on Austrian economics.
	However, I respect it as a very independent view.
	You can find it well articulated by Tom Woods, who has an excellent podcast, by Robert Murphy, who has an excellent podcast, that you have sympathy for it, even if not full alignment with it, from George Gammon, from Jeffrey Snyder, from Peter Schiff, from a range of others.
	And there have been times I strongly disagree with him.
	I think policy-wise, Trump's position of growth makes more sense to reduce the debt than an austerity-style politics that Elon Musk is championing.
	But I respect enough that there's a very good argument on the Elon Musk side of the aisle.
	Austrian economics people have been mocked and satirized, and I have my strong disagreements with them, but they are very thoughtful, thorough thinkers.
	We'll probably have Tom Longo on at some point.
	Now, he's more of a hybrid, but probably Robert Murphy on at some point.
	Yeah, I kind of look like Robert Murphy.
	So the very smart guy, very nice guy.
	I think we've had Tom Woods on before.
	Tom's a great.
	We've had Longo on as well.
	He was supposed to come back on.
	I don't know if you might have had him on, and maybe I wasn't there for it.
	I'm sure I had him on because I think we originally scheduled.
	He smokes more cigars than I do.
	That man puts even Bibi Netanyahu's cigar fixation.
	Hey, you want a new telecommunications contract?
	I think I need a couple hundred Cubans here by Saturday.
	And don't forget the Don Perignon for the wife.
	She likes that sort of thing.
	Though Elon Hokover did a good description on his site about the legitimate criticisms of the Netanyahu prosecution, you can find on our locals page and on his Substack.
	He's done very good breakdowns of all the other side of Israeli politics.
	But we'll see.
	But yes, the next will be the big, beautiful bill.
	What was big in it?
	What was beautiful in it?
	And what might have been a little less than big and beautiful in it?
	Well, Buma says, please decipher the bill, the good, the bad, the ugly.
	That was my title show for Friday.
	Let's do it, Robert.
	So one of the biggest critiques that I was trying to make sense of myself was the talking point that it's going to cut Medicaid for 17 million Americans.
	And then there was the argument that, well, you know, they try to root out the fraud of illegals who are on Medicaid.
	The flip side argument to that is that Medicaid, illegals don't qualify for Medicaid.
	So that argument falls on its face.
	The flip side response to that was apparently at the state level.
	Some states will offer Medicaid or the state level of Medicare to illegals and they get reimbursed by the feds.
	And I'm trying to make sense of it, but it's not, it's new to me.
	So what of the, starting off the basic, what is the argument for the claim that 17 million Americans over the next 10 years are going to lose access to Medicaid?
	And what of the argument that illegals, even if it's at the state level, contribute to the costs of Medicaid at the federal level?
	There's no doubt they do.
	So, I mean, I think the reason why Trump needed this bill is mostly what he prevented something from happening rather than making something happen.
	And namely, that he could not afford to have the biggest tax hike in American history.
	Because his tax cuts from 2017 were expiring, he had to have those tax cuts made permanent.
	Otherwise, Americans were going to suffer an economic shock and a massive tax hike.
	That's why he always had to have it.
	The second reason he had to have it was the biggest increase in immigration enforcement spending in American history.
	Indeed, our immigration enforcement budget is now bigger than the budget of most militaries around the world.
	So that shows his seriousness.
	That gives him the efficacy, including finally finishing the big beautiful wall.
	So and then last but not least was additional tax policy promises he made on at least reducing tax on tips, on overtime, on Social Security, increasing drastically the standard deduction whose principal beneficiaries, working class Americans.
	And critically, as the parallel part of his industrial policy, this includes stablecoin domestically and tariffs globally.
	The third component of that is industrial tax policy, incentivizing the factory building.
	Right now, you can build a factory next year and get all that depreciation accelerated.
	You have a massive tax incentive to build factories in America under Trump in the next 24 months.
	So flesh and so, let's say, take an easy number.
	The factory to build will cost $10 million ordinarily what you'd get to amortize over 20 years.
	Not only that, here's the second problem.
	You don't know when they're going to change the tax law, right?
	So what Trump has done is a beautiful twofer.
	He said, one, I'm going to accelerate all of that so that you get all the tax write-off right now.
	So you're basically giving people a big tax bonus to build factories in America and build them fast.
	But the second reason is that it's locked in.
	He's made it 100%.
	And that's not something that can be changed or reversed down the road.
	So you no longer have to worry about a change of administrations.
	You're like, hey, as long as you build it and you build it now.
	And that is a very understated, underappreciated aspect of Trump's bill.
	Is there any limitation or any specificity for the industry in which this applies or is it across the world?
	Just building a factory.
	Just building a factory.
	It's going to build things.
	That's it.
	Just building and making things.
	So that's the big and beautiful side of the bill.
	Now we can turn to some of the uglier ducklings that got married into the legislation.
	Well, let me think of one.
	Well, one, to your question on Medicaid.
	Unfortunately, you can't trust Republicans when it comes to Medicaid.
	I do trust Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	And Kennedy has said he is going to make sure the way in which the Medicaid cuts get implemented actually reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and don't penalize ordinary Americans because there's a bad history of Republicans cutting Medicaid, promising it's only going to hit waste, fraud, and abuse.
	And suddenly some poor working class veteran is out on the street without medical care.
	So that was the question is one of the arguments was it's just going to add a requirement that you have to be looking for a job while getting Medicaid.
	But I presume that some people are on Medicaid because they're unable to work.
	Now, I. If you're unable to work, no problem.
	So the, and this is what Robert Kennedy emphasized.
	If you're unable to work, you're still protected.
	If you're disabled, you're still protected.
	If you're in VA, you're still protected.
	If you have other sources of support, you're still protected.
	So that he was making sure that if you're a U.S. citizen, still protected, that it's only those, certain young mothers, you're still protected.
	It's only people that can be in the workforce in a way that does not impair family connection, family involvement.
	I mean, we don't want to force young mothers into the workforce.
	That doesn't make sense to me.
	We want young mothers being mothers.
	I think that's a better incentive than forcing them into workforce.
	What we don't want is people that have the capacity to work, don't have any child obligations, don't have any disability or other limitation.
	Those people, now, a lot of these are the dropouts.
	A lot of these people, people voted for Trump, by the way.
	So that are now being required to go back in and get a job.
	A good number of them don't have jobs because they've quit.
	Not because they're quitters, but because they don't think it's worth it anymore.
	They psychologically, emotionally just broke.
	This is why the suicide rate is so high amongst young working class men.
	This is why the drug abuse level is so high amongst young working class men.
	They have dropped out of all of society.
	And I know you've mentioned it before, but there was, where did I hear this?
	It was in a book that I read about the connection to industry, the connection to employment, the connection to career, and the idea that so many people are left without jobs, without any sort of career opportunity in certain, you say, call them smaller towns.
	I guess the idea is bring back manufacturing, bring back this.
	Yeah, I mean, that's where it works together.
	Like what Robert Kennedy said is we'll make sure this only gets implemented on the people that it really should get implemented on and that people who need care and that deserve care, that they haven't done something in their own behavior to reduce it, will get it.
	But Trump is other side, and this is why he can't make carve outs on immigration.
	The critical component, like his growth package is not only a growth package, in other words, Trump's premise is if I grow the economy greater than debt grows, then I've reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP.
	And everybody agrees that's the metric that really matters.
	Not the nominal amount of debt, but whether the percentage of GDP, what that percentage is.
	Right now, it's really high.
	It's one of the highest rates it's been outside of wartime in the United States.
	And that's why people like Elon Musk are deeply concerned.
	He wanted Malay-style economics.
	Trump kind of implied that maybe he would bring that.
	Trump never had any intention of doing that.
	If you've listened to Trump over the years, he thinks debt is overrated when you can print in your own currency.
	I happen to share some of his economic beliefs about that.
	Elon does not.
	But to be honest with you, Trump is, he's a politician.
	He's not going to tell anybody that's willing to join with him.
	No, I'm not going to give you what you need.
	You know, that's just the nature of the animal.
	But that concern is a legitimate concern featuring a lot of the, that's why Rand Paul voted no.
	That's why Rodden Johnson at one point voted no.
	That's why Thomas Massey voted no.
	That's why Fitzpatrick from suburban Pennsylvania voted no.
	But the bigger concern that could hurt Trump is the way in which the Senate watered down some of the tax cuts, the way the Senate added ridiculous tax increases on gamblers, and the way in which their Medicaid cuts could backfire unless Bobby Kennedy is very careful at making sure it does not punish rural hospitals.
	It does not punish disabled homeless vets.
	It does not punish young mothers who we want supporting motherhood.
	That's what he's got to make sure of.
	But I trust him.
	I have complete confidence in Bobby Kennedy for good cause.
	Worked with him for many years.
	He's just a great human being.
	Anybody that works for him will walk, we'll go through walls for him because they recognize what a good human being is.
	Watch that interview with Tucker Carlson, How he talks about his whole view of Trump totally transformed from where it was to the position that we've talked about: that Trump is badly misjudged as a human individual.
	For whatever political criticisms I have of Trump, they don't come from any dislike of Trump.
	It comes from when I think Trump is tactically making a mistake.
	It may be occasionally harsh in that regard, though, not as harsh as I'll be on Dan Bontino.
	The safe special reservation for that.
	But the risk with the bill is definitely the Medicaid one is a risk.
	But hopefully Bobby Kennedy makes sure that doesn't go away well, like it has in the past.
	Some Republicans, some Democratic governors will deliberately try to screw over people, will try to cut off people who deserve aid and pretend that Republicans force them to do it.
	And not to draw, to politicize a current event, but seeing the way that some Democrats are relishing in the death and destruction in Texas to blame it on Trump and cuts to the NOAA, they have no qualms about exploiting the death of innocents or every bureaucrat and every pal and friend and ally in an NGO getting fat off our big deep state and bureaucratic state.
	They pretend all of them are essential for poor people to have adequate care, medical care, adequate housing.
	They always do it in the name of the disadvantaged.
	But as Mike Benz was pointing out, all the money that was meant to help poor people in Pakistan never even went to Pakistan.
	It went to try to do a coup of Cuba is what it did.
	It went to a Cayman's bank account.
	It never even reached a Pakistani bank account.
	So it's always a scam, but that's the scam they're always going to run.
	You know, if an airplane crashes, it's because Trump cut the FAA.
	If anything goes wrong in the food supply, it's because Trump doesn't have enough regulators and bureaucrats running around.
	If anything goes natural disaster, it's because Trump hasn't given the federal government lots of funds.
	How'd that work out in Western North Carolina, folks?
	How'd all that money for all those different emergency organizations?
	How did that work for FEMA and all the others?
	By the way, go back and watch X-Files, who's the evil agency.
	It's FEMA, by the way, probably for a reason.
	But how did that work for the people of Western North Carolina while their homes got swept away and their kids drowned?
	The federal government has never been the bureaucratic solution that they like to pretend it is.
	But you can expect to see this coming.
	It's going to be up to Bobby Kennedy to make sure that part of the bill doesn't backfire on President Trump.
	The other parts that might backfire, the dumbest tax was put in by that loser Lindsey Graham, that war whore Lindsey Graham at the end, probably because he wasn't getting his wish list to bomb the entire world in wage war.
	Basically, Lindsey Graham is like an honorary German.
	He wakes up and wants to wage war with the whole world every other day.
	As the famous joke was by Norm, what was Norm's last name?
	The great.
	McDonald, the Canadian?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	The Canadian.
	He goes, you know, who really scares me are the Germans.
	They decided to wage war with the whole world, not only once, but twice.
	They woke up 20 years later and decided to do it again.
	It was a great thing.
	That's Lindsey Graham.
	He sticks in a provision to completely screw professional gamblers.
	Now, the Normie gambler will not be affected by this because the Normie gambler loses about 10% of what they bet each year.
	And so the new tax law is you take all your wins and you can now no longer deduct your losses.
	You can only deduct 90% of your losses.
	This is idiotic.
	This is unconstitutional.
	This is a patent violation of the 16th Amendment.
	The Supreme Court said the word income has a locked-in definition that Congress cannot change.
	Hold up, hold up, hold up.
	So round numbers, you make, let's just say a million dollars, you lose a million dollars, you can only deduct $900,000, and then you.
	You don't have to pay tax on $100,000 you never made.
	May I ask the obvious question?
	Where do they come up with the 90% number?
	Just out of their ass?
	Yeah, they just stuck it in the bill at the last minute.
	Lindsey Graham just stuck it in as a poison pill.
	They're not treating it like stock.
	If you lose $100,000 on GM and you make $100,000 on Tesla, well, that's a wash and you don't pay taxes.
	That has always been the rule.
	And now they're scrapping it and saying, no, no, you can only take 90% of your losses.
	And the thing with that is most gamblers roll over the professional gamblers roll over their bets.
	Now, for the Normie gambler, they lose about 10% of what they bet each year anyway.
	So it knows on average, they will bet like, say, $210,000 total in bet.
	They'll have made $100,000.
	They'll lost $110,000.
	So for them, it's a wash.
	It doesn't matter.
	You are never allowed to take losses outside of being a unique kind of professional gambler that you have to go through certain tax rules to get to.
	You are never allowed to take those as losses like you are other things in the real world.
	I've always had a problem with that.
	But here they're taking a step further.
	So like poker players get hammered by this in particular because almost all that is disclosed.
	Now, sports gamblers, depending on where they're at, they might be able to avoid it.
	Polymarket doesn't disclose fully.
	You can trade.
	And here's the other thing.
	But this gives you an idea.
	They ran out to screw people because they said they thought this would raise a $1 billion.
	And it's a small group.
	Your average sports political betting community, there's about 10% that will make money in any one given year.
	Only 1% make money multiple years in a row.
	I'm in that top 1%.
	People that are at sportspicks.locals.com, a lot of them that have followed the picks are now in that top 1% for multiple years.
	But now I'm going to come up with ways and put out at sportspicks.locals.com how give some tax ideas to make sure this doesn't negatively impact people.
	They still might go in and fix it.
	This does not impact 2025.
	It doesn't come around until tax year 2026.
	So there might be time still to fix it, but there are ways to avoid it.
	And here's a big one.
	The Calci.
	Causie has been legally designated as not a gambling transaction entity.
	Okay.
	Well, first of all, how did that happen?
	Who did they have to pay?
	Is there Calci lobbying or did they decide to?
	Well, one, they hired smart lawyers.
	And second, they brought smart lawsuits.
	And in fact, people may not remember.
	We promoted their litigation and promoted them all the way back when they first brought the suit.
	I explained how they should win the suit, so on and so forth.
	They did.
	And to me, gambling is money at the slot machine, at the video poker, at the baccarat, at the craps game.
	Because it's purely random.
	The definition historically and legally of gambling is that it's a purely random event, that there's no skill involved whatsoever, that there's nothing about it that is predictable beyond randomness.
	Clearly, almost all poker and sports betting is not random.
	It is something that is very predictable and that some people prove with their capacity, like we have over at SportsPicks, to have a skill at it.
	That's absolutely true of poker players.
	But here's the thing: these are mostly libertarian-leaning voters.
	You want to know who's going to line up, but they're like about 1% of the country to some degree, depending on where you're at in the country.
	But, like in Nevada, big swing state, there's a lot of them there.
	Where there's four House seats that are going to be up, a Senate seat's going to be up, all the rest.
	Why antagonize them?
	You know, these are the kind of people that would love the America Party because they're natural libertarians anyway.
	And so the why go out of your way to tax them in a way that's unconstitutional?
	Nobody was paying any attention to it.
	Clearly within the Senate, they let Lindsay, loser Lindsay, do whatever he wanted once again, and nobody called him on it.
	Credit to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	She went out and said, I'm not voting for the bill, no matter how mad Trump gets at me, if the AI immunity is still in there.
	She tells Trump that on the phone.
	What does Trump do?
	He calls Senator Blackburn from Tennessee.
	Senator Blackburn takes it out of the bill.
	So there's no longer this ridiculous, dumb AI immunity in the bill.
	But they let this stupid increased tax.
	I mean, you can go to a place like Circles Off online, Bill Krackenberger, others.
	The gambling community is going ballistic.
	Trump created this permanent enemy of above-average, smart, active, quasi-autist that could be a critical problem throughout all kinds of political races because it can be a tipping factor in a wide range of occasions by a discriminatory, unconstitutional tax that was never part of his original bill,
	that the constant traitor, the one he should be focused on taking out, which is loser Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina, snuck in the bill as a poison pill, hoping it would force the House to have to go back to committee and start all over again because Lindsey Graham was using the passage of the bill to leverage foreign policy.
	He was trying to get the president to commit to wars all around the world, or he wouldn't allow his big, beautiful bill to even get out of committee.
	Some of the immigration parts of that were being hijacked by Lindsey Graham.
	Richard Barris has been reporting on this for two months.
	And so that's why he did this too.
	But hopefully we get it fixed, those that are smart out there.
	But otherwise, what I'd recommend is, folks, use Calci whenever you can.
	Because to your point, they went in.
	And because this was my argument for 20 years.
	I'd been trying to encourage different sports gamblers and other gamblers to make the argument was this is not betting.
	Betting is not gambling.
	Gambling, true gambling is games of chance.
	I hate games of chance.
	I can't sit there for five minutes at a slot machine.
	I just sit in there and like, they're stealing all the money.
	They're stealing my money.
	This can't get over.
	I'll play roulette because as Wessey Snipes taught me, always bet on black.
	And what happened when we put it on black in Vegas, Viva?
	I think we won.
	Yes, we did.
	I've always won on black.
	There's no doubt about it.
	So, but that was a dumb part of the bill.
	Hopefully it gets corrected and fixed.
	But if you use Cauchy, Cauchy is not within the tax laws regulations.
	I'll be coming up with some free information for people to utilize at sportspicks.locals.com as to how to deal with the stupid aspects of this bill.
	All this bill does is encourage people to not use regulated sports books, to go underground, to use mobbed up sport bookies, to use offshore books that have connections to all kinds of people, sometimes undesirable people, to use more crypto and polymarket, where polymarket has 100 problems at the moment.
	But it encourages that because those are places that it encourages them to not report everything.
	That's what they're doing.
	They're forcing them underground again.
	The whole point of legalizing sports gambling was no more underground gambling that causes so many problems that enriches the mob, that empowers the mob, that creates more corruption in sports because it's not transparent anymore.
	So this was a dumb law, stupid law.
	Hopefully we get it fixed.
	Hopefully we get it corrected.
	Hopefully we get it remedied.
	Now the normie, again, mostly doesn't impact because most of them lose about 10%.
	I think that's where they came up with the number.
	They are basically only wanted to hammer successful smart gamblers, sports bettors, and poker players.
	It's like, I mean, I guess somebody must have really done Lindsay in a way that Lindsay didn't like.
	Well, I don't know what Lindsay likes, but Lindsay didn't happen to like to lead to this kind of nonsense.
	So now the other parts of the Big Beautiful bill that aren't as good as it should be is because the Senate, unless you're a big donor class, they're always figuring out ways to whittle down benefits rather than maximize it.
	So actually, before we get there, is the AI portion, has that been removed or did MT?
	Thanks to one Congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	It'd be my advice to my good friend Thomas Massey.
	Maybe you can use a leverage a little bit better, Tommy.
	Again, but one other thing.
	Chris Lecibito remains one of the biggest bottom barrel scumbags in America.
	This man decides to launch his PAC sponsored and funded by Trump-connected people and Trump himself against Thomas Massey.
	Guess what day they choose to start running nasty, negative, lying ads against Thomas Massey and his district?
	4th of July?
	No, the anniversary of his wife's death.
	That's even worse.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That's bottom.
	I've told people Chris LeCivet is bottom barrel scum.
	This is Susie Wiles' fault.
	Susie Wiles doing a lousy job lately.
	Trump likes to brag about her.
	I see a lot of screw-ups happening in a lot of places, thanks to Susie Wiles.
	But that shows what kind of classless people that Trump has affiliated himself with.
	Chris LeCivet has always been a bum.
	By the way, Chris LeCivitta cheered Trump being impeached and indicted and removed from office.
	That's who Trump has decided to make rich.
	I mean, I'm sorry.
	These are just dumb decisions.
	I don't pretend Trump is God.
	I have a great admiration for him, great respect for him, good endearment with him, have represented him in the past, but I don't live in La La Land or fantasy land when he promotes idiots and morons and crooks like this, just like when he promotes idiots, morons, and crooks like Bibi Nanyaho.
	Except that one could lead us into stupid war.
	So, but what happened is the Senate watered down all of his, like I used to hear people saying, there's now no tax on tips.
	Not true.
	Now there's no tax on overtap.
	Time, not true.
	Now there's no tax on Social Security.
	Not true.
	All three are false because the Senate, not due to Trump, but because the Senate watered it down.
	What the Senate did is said, only some of your tips are now not taxable, and you only get it as a deduction when you file your returns.
	So the ordinary worker is going to be expecting to see on their paycheck more income because they think tips are no longer taxed for those that have tips included in their income, in their paycheck.
	Same with those who receive overtime.
	Except what happens after Trump has been promising this to the world when next month and the month after and next year, they go and they don't see any change in their paychecks.
	To explain that to the lay person who, you know, it might be a little complicated.
	You make, I don't know, it's too much like $5,000 a month.
	And if you make $1,000 on tips, you make $6,000 a month when they take deductions at source from your employer because I guess you're not doing quarterly installments.
	It's separate tax.
	It's a withholding tax.
	It's never been properly explained.
	A whole tax protesters could go on to explain to you for about 10 hours.
	They're the only ones that actually understand our tax laws, ironically enough.
	But that's another story for another day.
	Bottom line is the deductions are going to be based on $6,000 a year salary.
	At the end of the year, you're going to file how much you got in taxes and you're going to get the credit or reimbursement for whatever you overpaid.
	That's how it's going to work.
	Yeah, correct.
	But only a portion.
	So only some of your...
	A lot of working class people don't owe income tax.
	They pay other taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, et cetera.
	They're going to get no benefit.
	About half of the working class will get no benefit from this.
	The other half will only get part of their tips, part of the tax on tips reduced because they also cap the amount of income you make for it.
	They cap how much tips income you can reduce.
	They did the same on overtime.
	They did the same on Social Security.
	So there has been a reduction of taxes on tips, a reduction of taxes on overtime, a reduction of taxes on Social Security, but not its abolition.
	As a lot of people are out there, Donald Trump Jr. and others seem to believe this happened.
	It didn't happen.
	They water down the law in the Senate because unless you're a big lobbyist, there's no special lobbyist for waitresses.
	There's no special lobbyist for construction overtime workers.
	There's no special lobbyist for working class seniors living off of Social Security.
	So the Senate doesn't give a rat's rear end about them.
	So what they do is they go in down and just to save little bits of money, screw those people over and fail to give President Trump his full promise.
	So it's good that there's at least some tax good treatment there.
	And I particularly like the increase in the standard deduction.
	I've been arguing for a long time that people should campaign, if you're not going to abolish the income tax, at least abolish it for all working and middle class families and small businesses in America.
	And how you do that, if you're a certain kind of small business or small farmer, you can be exempt.
	All small farms are a small business.
	You can be by certain designations of gross revenue, et cetera, be exempt from it.
	But the other is you just increase the standard deduction.
	You increase the standard deduction to $100,000 for a family of four.
	$50,000, $75,000 for a couple, $50,000 for a single person.
	What does that make?
	It means all working and middle-class people no longer are subject to the American income tax.
	Big win is my take.
	And then you can still use the earned income tax credit as a credit against the excessive payroll taxes they have to pay, in my opinion.
	But I'm glad they increased that standard deduction.
	That is really beneficial, contrary to what you're going to hear, that the biggest net income percentage-wise, now in gross money terms, the rich always benefit from any tax cut because the rich pay the overwhelming part of American taxes.
	Not big corporations, but wealthy people that make their money off of their own labor.
	Those are the ones that, like wealthy investors don't pay as much.
	The people that make the most are your NBA baseball, basketball players, right?
	Your doctor, your really good small businessman.
	You know, you're like your plumber that makes a quarter a million a year.
	Your high-end, top-of-the-notch, best in the world kind of plumber.
	I've worked for those kind of people before.
	Those are the ones that get hammered.
	But it's always going to be in gross terms because that's where the money is.
	But what you care about is how much is the percentage of benefits, how much does the ordinary person is their checkbook, if you will.
	We don't use those anymore, but we had them.
	How much are they in the black because of this bill?
	As long as Bobby Kennedy handles the Medicaid portion right, and the way the tax portion is done, hopefully Scott Besson can pass rules to at least mitigate some of the worst impacts of the gambling one, for example, and other aspects, then the ordinary person is going to net gain from Trump's bill.
	And the economy is going to be in a position to substantially grow.
	In particular, this is where the industrial plus immigration plays in.
	Trump's goal is not just for the economy to grow.
	His goal is for the economy to grow for the average working middle-class family.
	And the way that best happens is you radically reduce the amount of illegal immigration competing in the labor force for those jobs and wages.
	The contrary, because that's what we just saw, right?
	A million people, most of whom self-deported, foreign-born workers lost 800,000 jobs in the first six months of Trump's administration.
	What did that lead to?
	Did that lead to a net decline in jobs?
	Nope.
	What did it lead to?
	It led to the first major real gain in both wages and jobs of Native born American workers since President Trump was last president.
	This can put that on the, this is why I support the bill, despite my problems with aspects of it.
	And others, most Magna, supported the bill, because not only it avoids the disaster of a massive tax hike, but it gives us the tools of the tariff policy, the domestic implication of that with the industrial policy, with the factory depreciation incentive, but the big one being the immigration benefits translating to better wages and jobs here in America.
	He wants to grow the American economy, but he wants to grow it for the American people.
	And this bill gives us the best chance of that occurring.
	So net, it will likely gain and help Trump, but there's definitely some poison pills scattered about.
	And a lot of it's going to be on Bobby Kenny to make sure it doesn't blow up on him and the way the Medicaid changes are instituted and the way that corrupt rogue Democratic state politicians are going to try to misuse and abuse it.
	As a whole, net good, unless you believe, like Elon and some libertarians, that the debt is the biggest priority and that this does nothing for the debt.
	On that, they're right if Trump is wrong about growth.
	If Trump is right about growth, then they're wrong about its impact on the debt.
	The question I was going to ask you was about...
	That's not neither in nor out.
	It's not in the bill.
	Trump is, if Trump, he is serious.
	People are going to have to keep yelling at him about it.
	He's pretending it's some radical right group that opposes it.
	No, it's 62% of Americans, including people who didn't even vote for you, President Trump, who disagree with your point.
	And just in case nobody knows, Trump is floating the idea of empowering farm owners to vote for illegal aliens who have been working at their farms for many, many years and don't want to see them be deported under his program to deport illegals.
	And so he's carving out this exception, which he's framing as empowering farmers and hospitality to continue using and exploiting cheap illegal labor.
	And I think I haven't met anybody who thinks it's a good idea, Robert, but it's not.
	And here's the thing.
	I see my dear sisters in the chat tell me some labor is uncompetitive.
	For that labor, they have temporary visas they can use.
	So there's already temporary for seasonal workers where you really do have difficulty recruiting a consistent U.S. labor market for.
	Even if you think that's the case, the solution is to make sure the temporary seasonal worker visa protection program is there for that particular kind of farmer.
	So for example, for strawberries, basically they can't compete even using the minimum wage.
	We want to produce strawberries in the United States, we need somebody willing to work for $2 an hour, right?
	There are some seasonal workers that will do so from overseas.
	Okay, that's a place where American people would have no problem.
	When you just carve out this huge exemption and say you're not going to enforce illegal immigration laws unless, as long as they're working for a hospitality group or a agricultural entity, then one, most of those places, you got plenty of American workers willing to compete.
	Number two, the point you made, it just opens up a disastrous loophole.
	I just said if I could foresee organized crime or human trafficking taking hold of that, on the one hand, you know, like you were saying, small farmers, Amish farmers, they don't use illegals to begin with.
	I could easily foresee people approaching them saying, you're going to use illegals in the sense that you're going to vouch for people.
	And if you don't, it's a nice independent farm that you have there.
	Go to the big side of it.
	On the big end, that's how they maximize their profits by exploiting illegals under the pre-you'll have a bunch of people that hire illegals that aren't even running any business.
	All the lefty NGOs will just reform as farms, as hospitality, as leisure industry.
	Like Trump was so clueless.
	He was talking about this, politically clueless.
	He was talking about this.
	Sometimes people think I'm second-guessing Trump's intelligence.
	I'm not.
	I think Trump's a brilliant man, greatly underrated.
	You cannot achieve what he has achieved and be dumb, folks, period.
	What I mean is politically, tactically making a dumb decision.
	Very different interpretation.
	So, but what I mean by cluelessness is he doesn't understand who he's talking to in the environment he's talking to.
	For example, he was like, oh, this will be great here in Iowa because there's a bunch of farms in Iowa.
	Small farms in Iowa don't hire illegals.
	Guess what the big corporate farms in Iowa do?
	They do hire illegals.
	Guess what some of those illegals have done?
	Some of the worst crimes that Trump himself has talked about were made by illegals working on farms, big corporate ag farms, working in the various meat poultry plants and the like.
	So those have been to my John, Senator Hawley is becoming a real icon of mine in the Senate.
	He's been taking on a certain Tyson Foods and exposing them lately.
	I have enough sufficient distance from the settlement so I can get back to bashing Tyson Foods.
	So you got to keep up, as Hank Williams Jr. would sing, some family traditions.
	So, but I, but it's just a dumb policy proposal.
	If you think there needs to be more seasonal workers or seasonal workers to be protected, there's a legal process to do that.
	That's somebody coming in legally.
	And you can look at it from a market perspective and say, you know what, that particular area of production, there is no U.S. labor competition for it, to my sister Ellen Point.
	But for those that there is, but again, that's the protocol.
	Broad amnesty, use the existing legal framework where it is appropriate, where it is not appropriate, but do not use a new amnesty, a new say, what it really is, is sanctuary policies for special businesses.
	Sanctuary agriculture.
	They call it SANCAG.
	But Robert, instead of carving out a special visa for people you can exploit, why wouldn't it be IOTA?
	We already have that.
	Legally, we already have this whole framework to bring in seasonal workers.
	And if it's done right, that's not a major problem because it's somebody, people that travel globally that do this work.
	And they're like, okay, I can get a seasonal visa.
	It's like oil.
	Like I was breaking down all the craziness that's happening in Azure Bajan.
	And one of our board members, which is always above average, just read their description of how they came up with their names and their avatars and everything else, which is fantastic.
	Sometimes they're referencing literary books.
	Sometimes they're referencing films from the 1980s.
	Sometimes they're alternate.
	Eddie, I forget what Eddie's last name was, this alternative personality, this name this guy used to get around university rules, all this great stuff.
	But one of them pointed out like the craziness, like they worked as oil and gas workers in Azerbaijan, and they went through how that basically are all criminals.
	The whole state is a criminal state.
	It's basically just a, it's like Albania on steroids.
	It's just one big massive criminal organization.
	They're busy causing trouble in Russia and Iran as we speak.
	Probably not smart for this little small criminal organization to be, you know, you're going to punch the bear and the Persian bear at the same time.
	Good luck with that.
	But there's people that focus on just that.
	And for those people, it's really, we have a system that works there.
	It doesn't work if we start doing mass amnesty.
	It doesn't work if we start putting them on a citizenship track.
	Then it all blows up and it all blows back.
	And that's where Trump is making a mistake.
	Hopefully he'll fix it, but it's going to, I mean, he has heard the booze and doesn't like the booze, but is pretending the booze are only a minority because he's got Swamp Susie.
	That's what I'm going to call Susie Wiles, the chief of staff.
	Swampy Susie is telling him it's all fine.
	Let me bring something up.
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	I'm going to get invited to the White House anytime soon.
	I keep doing this.
	Robert, I'm sure Susie Wiles got me in a few black lists this week.
	It doesn't matter.
	I still got cabinet secretaries giving me a call.
	Let me do one thing here.
	Are we done with the anything else?
	Oh, yeah.
	We got the big, the big case, the big verdict of the week.
	Oh, yeah.
	Only, only Viva Fry predicted on Megan Kelly, no less.
	I almost got her banned from Spotify, I guess.
	But why?
	Because it was so accurate in the famous case of P. Diddy.
	Well, we'll get there.
	Let me read the ComiTube super chats.
	Joe Spinella says, Trump announced to end property taxes over the weekend.
	Robert, I know you have spoken with Mitch Vexler.
	Do you think the president's ear is hearing Mitch's efforts down in Texas and across the country?
	Well, it's a very popular idea.
	It's a very good idea.
	Now, he has very limited capacity to do so because all property taxes are state and local by law.
	Okay.
	That was from Joe Spinella.
	Philip Vecchio says Libertarian Larry Sharp worked for RFK Jr.
	Jackson Kai says Libertarian Party is corrupt when they run as Republicans, wouldn't even take a cabinet position in exchange for endorsing they cause this.
	I got Trump's response to Elon's announcement.
	I'll bring that up in a second.
	Guerrilla Strength Equipment says, I like beef that is 100% natural.
	To purchase grass-fed beef locally in Kentucky from a local farmer, I have to buy a share in the cow while it is still alive.
	And this is because they abuse the custom laws to force you to own the whole cow, which is ridiculous.
	And they make herd sharing illegal in most places.
	A lot of people, a lot of small farmers, think their herd share agreements will hold up.
	Almost no courts, and the federal government doesn't respect them.
	And that's what I'm going to be talking to Brooke Rollins about.
	And Rollins just needs to bring in advocates of small farmers, not just me, but there's a bunch of other great advocates of small farmers all across the country.
	And these are Joel Salatin and others, and rarely consult them to focus on them.
	Because right now, the only people who have our ear are big agriculture.
	And that's a problem.
	I know of literally no small farmer that's advocating that we need that they need illegals.
	In fact, their complaint is that big corporate agriculture gets a competitive market edge because they can pay illegals at below market rates.
	I just want to bring this one up because I don't know if this is a joke.
	The only three-letter agency I completely trust during a disaster is H-E-B.
	They always show up immediately after and everyone gets taken care of.
	That's from Contemporary Compendium.
	Heb, in my lexicon, is a shorthand word for Hebrew or Jew.
	I don't know what agency that is.
	I guess you can trust them.
	Grocery store.
	Say it again.
	It's a grocery store chain.
	They donate a lot of stuff to...
	yes certain parts of the country yeah i was so many distinct parts of the country that What's those crazy stories?
	Buckies.
	Yes, Buckies.
	Those stories are wild.
	That's a true America.
	That's where you could get a Captain America kind of hat.
	It's a very American hat.
	You can get a Captain America hat, a barbecue, pulled pork, ribs.
	It's anxiety-inducing if you're sensitive to those types of flashing lights.
	Hold on.
	But before we even get there, I also, speaking of good American meat, I noticed Bill Tong is in the house after.
	Tropical Rocket says, a tax reduction on working class people does not meaningfully reduce tax receipts.
	This is a no-brainer.
	King of Bill Tong, 100 buck crumble rant says, premia Bill Tong from Bill Tong USA, high protein, keto-friendly, no additives, free shipping for purchases over $54.95.
	Don't wait.
	BilltongUSA.com code Barnes for 10% off.
	And I listened to the Lotus Heater segment.
	One of the things they talked about is farm jobs picking crops is eventually going to become automated.
	Yeah, I just want to say why.
	In a lot of capacities, but in a lot of capacities, that's greatly overrated.
	Well, but why?
	There's certain things you can automate a lot easier than others.
	My nephew, my rocket engineer nephew studying at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, he's part commie, by the way.
	But he was giving me a great description of how AI works and why AI will always have AI is not conceptually intuitive.
	AI is basically a language-based binary structure.
	And as he explained it to me, I was like, oh, okay, AI is able to compete in certain areas.
	It's not going to be able to compete in a lot of other areas.
	And it's why it has a hallucination problem, because it's trying to just match up language and words, if you will.
	So that's why it comes up with fake cases in law, fake medical treatments, things like that.
	They don't know it's hallucinating.
	They're now calling it the AI hallucination problem.
	And I think it's because it's this language-based binary model that gives some limitations.
	Though Encryptus would probably know better than me about all that work.
	I was going to say something about...
	I forgot.
	It'll come back in a second.
	No, I wanted to bring up Trump's reply to the news here, Elon Musk.
	I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely, quote, off the rails, end quote, essentially becoming a train wreck over the past five weeks.
	He wants to start a third political party, despite the fact that they've never succeeded in the United States.
	System seems not designed for them.
	The one thing third parties are good for is creating complete and total disruption and chaos.
	And we have enough of that with the radical left Democrats who have lost confidence and their minds.
	Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth-running machine.
	No, they're not.
	They're anything but that.
	But if Trump wants to pretend so, go ahead.
	He put it in quotes that just passed the biggest bill of its kind in the history of our country.
	It's a great bill.
	But unfortunately for Elon, it eliminates the most ridiculous electoral.
	And I get he wants to highlight that.
	I mean, not at all why Elon is against it.
	Didn't he put out a tweet a while back saying, I'm all for it?
	He's repeatedly said he has no problem with getting rid of the EV mandate.
	Trump wants to pretend there's not an ideological disagreement.
	And I have never understood that with Trump.
	Like with Massey, it's been the same dynamic.
	He never really...
	And Massey still likes him personally, despite the policy disagreements, because Massey's able to separate the two.
	Trump, for whatever reason, is it.
	And I think this kind of criticism, I get part of it.
	He wants to say the debate between me and Elon is about climate change and electric EV versus gas.
	And he thinks that's a winning issue for him.
	And it is.
	It's not exactly, it's not why Elon is upset with the, and he's not so much upset with Trump as he is with the Republican Party, that he could get no headway with the Republican Party caring about the libertarian part of their base.
	That's what he's clearly agitated about.
	Now, some of us could have told him that was going to happen.
	But, you know, you can follow like the red-headed libertarian online.
	Cheese does a good job of, you know, capturing the libertarian MAGA, you know, alliance and divide as it may occur.
	And a lot of them are right.
	I mean, this bashing of libertarians is just stupid.
	It's dumb politics.
	And how did it work when Trump was bashing Kennedy?
	He was behind in the pulse.
	Then he unites with Kennedy.
	What happens?
	He goes up in the pulse.
	So find areas of alignment with Elon's voter group to motivate them to be, to stick with the Republican brand and Trump.
	That's all he's got to do.
	Being negative isn't going to get him anywhere because it's not going to win over the voter he needs to win.
	The voter who will respond to his negativity is already with him.
	They're the choir, as I like to call them.
	They're going to be with you no matter what.
	You need the voter who's not going to be with you unless you reach out to them specifically on the issues they care about.
	That's what he should use the Elon challenge to do, not threaten Elon personally, not get into personal tips with Elon.
	Be honest with you, Elon couldn't welcome.
	Elon would love this.
	Trump constantly talking about Elon, boost the issue of the America Party and the differences between them.
	It just keeps the story going.
	It does not help Trump to continue this.
	But unfortunately, sometimes he can't help himself.
	Well, we're going to do a hard cut segue into the next story, but we'll start with Meon Megan Kelly about a month and a half.
	It was late May.
	It was right after the trial had started.
	And Heather and Megan Kelly had not heard this from anybody before.
	And it might have got her temporarily banned by her Spotify every day.
	She was genuinely surprised.
	This is the abridged version, but you've all seen it again, but we're going to play it.
	You have this entire blackmail extortion ring.
	They went and raided Diddy's house.
	There were cameras there.
	We know that it involves the higher ups in the entertainment industry, if not the world of politics as well.
	And this entire prosecution is reduced to P. Diddy and what we know of his abuse of Cassie and potentially Jane.
	And then, once you flesh out the fact that for whatever the reason, Maureen Comey, James Comey's daughter, is still involved as one of the this trial.
	This trial is a show trial because they're going to get him on something.
	It might just be the, you know, trafficking for prostitution purposes, which seems undeniable.
	Send him away for 10 years.
	Maybe he gets out after eight.
	And then you've successfully covered up the entire extortion ring that P. Diddy was running, much like what they did with Epstein.
	Oh, that's very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Yes.
	I think you've been the most accurate predictor of any legal cases on Megan Kelly's show since her show has started.
	I get a few.
	I'm going to take these out of here.
	I get a few wrong because I'm still an optimist behind, you know, my optimism gets in the way of realism.
	Robert, you saw the verdict.
	It was guilty on two cases.
	That was exactly what we talked about last Sunday.
	Said that if they follow the law, the verdict would be not guilty on RICO, not guilty on trafficking, guilty on prostitution across state lines.
	That's exactly what the jury concluded.
	But this is the caveat to your following the law based on the prosecution as it was conducted.
	To me, in my mind, there's zero chance that when they brought the sex trafficking RICO prosecution, I believe there was more evidence than they decided to adduce at court.
	There's no question he's been a world-class RICO espionage extortionist, blackmailer, running sex human trafficking rings across the country for probably the better part of 20 years.
	But they hid all of that evidence because to let that evidence in would implicate Jay-Z, implicate Beyonce, implicate big Democratic donors within the entertainment industry, and implicate and likely implicate a man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
	It is the timing of the arrest and prosecution was sort of like with Eric Adams, where like it came at a time where people were like, why would they do this?
	It could play against Kamala Harris at the time, because this was after Joe Biden withdrew from the race.
	I think the bottom line, the way they chose to carry out that prosecution and the evidence they decided to adduce at the trial, bringing it all down to Cassie and Jane Doe, that the sex trafficking was strictly for him to masturbate.
	I mean, literally, that's how absurd it is that the cameras in the rooms.
	He trafficked the woman to himself.
	That's not trafficking.
	As I said, if the defense had been better, now, of course, these defense lawyers are going to get revered as they're the ones who got P. Diddy off.
	They really did a mediocre defense presentation.
	It was because the prosecution was a cover-up.
	It was another Comey cover-up, like the Epstein case, like the Glene Maxwell case, which she both magically had as well.
	Maureen Comey was involved in the Epstein case.
	I don't think she was a lead prosecutor, but she was prosecuting that case when Epstein killed himself.
	She was one of Those are in quotes, Dan.
	Eternal truth number one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
	And then she was a lead prosecutor in the Ghillain Maxwell case, another case where she was sentenced to 20, 25 years for sex trafficking to nobody.
	Like to nobody.
	And they got away with it there.
	Whether or not they thought they were going to get away with it this time, they didn't.
	So now they've decided to prosecute this case as sex trafficking RICO.
	The RICO was for firebombing some gangster, gang rapper, whatever.
	I sound like an old man now.
	Some rapper's Porsche.
	The sex trafficking consisted of him transporting prostitutes across state lines, which what's the purpose of the Man Act?
	Can you explain the raison d'être of that law?
	There is a racial history to it, primarily.
	It was used against a famous black boxer in totally bogus grounds.
	I think Jack Johnson, the great black boxer, who was pardoned, by the way, by President Donald Trump, by the way.
	So it had an ugly undercurrent, ugly history.
	So it's what they were using to try to go after Thomas Massey for a period.
	I mean, not Thomas Massey, Matt Gates for a period of time.
	And so it's a bogus law in my view that doesn't make a lot of sense.
	We have legitimate human trafficking laws that cover what that ban act is supposed to cover.
	But remember, who is it that he brought in as prostitutes across state lines?
	It wasn't the women.
	It was the men.
	So for hiring two male escorts for his girlfriends, he is now, I can tell you, the traditional sentencing guidelines on this is 15 months.
	At the time of the sentencing, but he'll have already done 15 months.
	And I don't know if he gets so corrupt.
	They may issue a crazy sentence.
	But my prediction is ultimately the appeals court will set that aside because of how insane it is.
	In all likelihood, he is out within a year.
	That was the one miscalculation of my prediction where I said the max sentence for each county.
	But this judge will probably give him a crazy sentence like that.
	Well, that's because she hates how the verdict came down.
	Hold on a second.
	How long has Diddy been locked?
	Already 10 months.
	And by the end of sentencing, which is October, it'll be 13, 14 months.
	And the way good time works, you get at least 15% off.
	That's equal to about an 18-month sentence.
	The average sentence under the sentencing guidelines for a first-time offender like Diddy for just the Man Act violation is 15 months.
	But pre-trial detention, doesn't that count for like time and a half or something?
	No.
	Oh, really?
	You get no benefit for being locked up before being convicted?
	You get credit, but just day-for-day credit.
	Okay.
	I'll take, okay.
	I thought you got some sort of like prorated time and a half or twice for pre-trial detention.
	You should.
	That would discourage the abuse of bail.
	So that's P. Diddy, people.
	The conspiracy is complete.
	Somebody in the chat is telling me that Epstein is alive, Barnes.
	It's in Mina, Arkansas.
	Hanging out with Barry Seal, the down there.
	I don't believe that he's alive.
	And I say, even if he did kill himself with the sheets that were provided for him with the cameras turned off and the security guards out and no cellmate, that's a conspiracy.
	All right.
	Before we move on to the next, a bunch of SCODIS sirshiorari.
	Oh, yeah.
	Got tons of SCODUS.
	We got the RFK plot.
	We got a census.
	We got coercion.
	We got a couple of more fun cases.
	Let's highlight some of our locals community here while we got the big audience.
	Have you had a chance to listen to this?
	It's Steve Turley.
	Is Steve Turley someone generally to listen to?
	Also, how much of what he says in this clip is correct?
	I haven't seen the clip.
	I haven't seen the clip.
	I like Steve Turley.
	Have you been on his show multiple times?
	Met him a couple of times out in Vegas.
	Cool guy.
	Very smart guy.
	Very sharp guy.
	Not related to the populist libertarian right.
	No relation to Jonathan Turley.
	No, no, no.
	Roger G says, tried sending a tip in the comments.
	I'll check that out in a bit.
	Liam Sturgis says, we've crossed a Rubicon with a Global News story last week on Kayla, Sean Hartman, and others injured by the or killed by the COVID-19.
	Learn the history of Canada's fatally flawed vaccine injury program, VISP.
	So, by the way, I saw this live.
	I retweeted Kayla Pollock, who has been on the channel a number of times, quadriplegic from her Moderna booster to her Pfizer jabs.
	Global News puts out an article talking about how the vaccine injury support program is actually just a load of crap under Canada.
	$50 million given to the organization, $12 million paid out, $36 million squandered.
	They sit around twiddling their thumbs, drinking on Fridays.
	Robert Kennedy had a big breakdown on how our program has been an utter disaster.
	And one of his major reforms is going to be to radically restructure that program so that even if he's not able to get through legislative reform at changing what's on the changing the PrEP Act immunity or others, which he's also going to be part of, he's going to make sure that the program lives up to its expectations and that people actually get reimbursed for their injuries.
	And he's looking at restructuring the whole thing.
	So credit to Bobby Kennedy for the number one deliverer in the Trump cabinet of the things that got Trump elected.
	And this is for Vivian, who is in the chat.
	She'll be further agitated when I say this, is Robert Francis Kennedy.
	Well, I say that we need some of that on the Canadian side.
	They've paid out 209 cases.
	They have yet, they denied Sean Hartman, Dan Hartman, his father's claim.
	And that's been under appeal for two years now.
	But the issue is that they've updated their story that they published two days ago now, because apparently some conservative politicians are feigning faux outrage that, oh, we didn't know this was going on.
	We're going to get right into it.
	Bullcrap.
	All right.
	Let's do the Brownstone.
	Hold on.
	Let me bring it up so that nobody thinks that you're making this up, Robert, because great work there being done ever since COVID started by a man who started off as a bowtide libertarian.
	We'll have to have him on too, Jeffrey Tucker, who reminded me of Tucker Carlson, early Tucker Carlson.
	And he was radically red-pilled on pretty much everything due to COVID.
	And now the Brownstone Institute has been one of the principal sponsors of a lot of populist liberty-oriented work that is really fantastic work.
	But one of the things they did is they got sources that are able to get inside Big Pharma's secret plan to take out Robert Kennedy.
	And it's a great article, great detail, great work.
	It's the kind of Mossad-style investigation work that we need.
	We need people like what James O'Keefe does.
	You know, get inside George Soros' open societies and open borders groups.
	Get inside the big pharma lobbying groups.
	Get inside Mossad and get inside the Israeli, the AIPAC groups.
	Feed us what they're really up to, what their real plots and plannings are, plans are.
	And this is fantastic work by Jeffrey Tucker and the Brownstone Institute.
	Well, and they must have gotten a lawyer's letter because I'll read you the update or at least the highlighted parts.
	But from the article, and you'll flesh this out a little bit more in detail.
	Apparent leaked minutes documents suggest that a trade association held a meeting in April to undo the confirmation of Kennedy by the duly elected U.S. Senate embedded below.
	But then they had to add a clarification.
	These are leaked minutes, yada, yada, yada.
	The statements represent the content of the documents.
	They do any of those corporate whore lawyers trying to send out intimidation.
	My comments do indeed constitute claims of individual bad conduct, but I'll get to that here in a little bit.
	But yes, the Brown Sun Institute is just doing a little CYA, but those corporate lawyers can go dealt with them for a decade or now.
	So in all these cases, no love lost between me and them, and there never will be.
	This was great work documenting the inside scam and scheme to and the key thing to look out for, the number one, what was their number one objective?
	To divide MAGA from MAHA, to divide Make America great again from Make America Healthy Again.
	And they thought one of the main ways to do so was to secretly buy off prominent conservative social media influencers perceived as MAGA.
	Now, has there been any unusual criticism from MAGA influencers of Robert Kennedy that made no sense, that were basically libelists?
	Are they people that I may have previously suggested to people might be crifters known as Queen Candace Owens and the one and only Laura Loomer?
	Are they on the secret payrolls of Big Pharma?
	I think it's a question worth asking given this report.
	The issue is this.
	Some of them might just do it for free or for clout or because of some sincerely held but poorly directed loyalty to MAGA.
	What was that story about RFK Jr.?
	Remember they were trying to say he was being extorted by Israel and there was a sex scandal.
	Yeah, the sex scandal.
	It was ludicrous across the board.
	It had been disproven repeatedly.
	And Laura Loomer was eager to regurgitate that garbage.
	Candace, Queen Candice, was eager to regurgitate that garbage.
	In between saying Bridget Macron is a man and Stalin was a Jew.
	She was a busy.
	These people are the queen of grifters.
	That still goes to Candace, sort of the mistress of maybe more ways than one, of grifting Laura Loomer.
	But be careful of these people.
	Remember when a few, about a month ago or so, a bunch of conservative influencers were putting out generic quote statements about one of Robert Kennedy's proposals on Snap and other things like that.
	Remember, and they got caught because they were using identical scripted language?
	Credit to the quartering.
	The quartering was one of the people that would be like, hmm, this kind of looks like it's fixed.
	This kind of looks like it's rigged.
	Everybody's already making fun.
	They're saying Ian Chong, that sort of grifter, the definite grifter from Singapore, that he's going to be the new spokesperson for Elon Musk.
	Because Elon Musk, America Party, foreigners first.
	There's a lot of ways to make fun of who Elon's putting together and all the rest.
	But this should remind people, you can't trust Laura Loomer.
	You can't trust Candace Owens.
	And I don't think it's a coincidence.
	They were putting out these false defamatory claims about Robert Kennedy at the same time as we now know there was an effort to pay off in secret conservative influencers to go after Robert Kennedy to divide MAGA from Maha.
	Well, I'll say, you know, in Laura's defense, I think she was doing it even beforehand, but set it aside.
	This is one of the issues.
	I remember this particular faux scandal because I'm reluctant to do a random side note for Laura Loomer.
	When you look a certain way, I recommend a different avatar to saying.
	No, not your photo.
	All right.
	All that to say, this one accusing him of raising money off the back of Trump.
	I say, I didn't even, from what I understood of the story, believe it in the first place.
	And I don't think it was accurate.
	I do think she's sometimes her own worst enemy.
	But it is very interesting that they were having, how much should they, there's no, no disclosure of how much these people might be getting paid for this.
	That part we don't know yet.
	And a lot of that money is always under the table at Unreportable because these people don't technically lobby.
	So that money can never show up.
	I mean, if they even just do it in crypto transfers, I mean, that's probably the easiest.
	All right.
	Well, then you understand why the government wants to regulate everything.
	And usually what is they use multiple cutouts.
	They know how to launder money.
	So it goes to this firm that goes to a law firm that goes to this firm and then shows up in your account from the something like Worldwide Imports, you know, something like that.
	They always sound like CIA names, you know, all the corrupt.
	That's when you know something's up, when it's like the Smith-Jones bill or whatever.
	What was the one that the guy, we should stop talking about this story?
	The Vance Belter was running Red Lion something in the Congo.
	And then there happened to be another Red Lion.
	Very interesting.
	I have to go rehash that story a little bit.
	Just disappeared from the news cycle.
	All right, Russell.
	So we're going to get into now sertioris denied.
	A couple were accepted.
	SCODIS decisions.
	How do you want to get this one going?
	Well, first, we got the crazy courts.
	Remember what we warned about last week?
	We said great decision on nationwide injunctions, but didn't go far enough.
	And that the four conservative dissenters, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, were correct that what Roberts should have done is sign off on their decision, not Barrett's decision, and then they would have shut this nonsense down for good.
	But they didn't, because what they did is they said no more universal injunctions, but they didn't answer the question about birthright citizenship, the sub big substantive question underneath it all.
	And most importantly, they didn't answer the question about the other procedural mechanisms for the same nightmare of judicial interference with the executive branch, which are class actions and standing.
	Okay.
	And so which case was this in now?
	And not only that, he said he's considering extending the class action to people that are not even in the United States, to people that have ever been deported.
	To say the president of the United States has to let them into the country, has to reopen the border for any amnesty application, and cannot deport any of them while their amnesty application is being adjudicated.
	It would completely gut all of the things President Trump is doing, erase all of the remedies and relief.
	And he's doing it overnight.
	And he did it right after, literally the Tuesday after the Supreme Court's decision.
	He issued this insane class action that certified everybody under the sun that is saying, I here declare the border must be open.
	Everybody must be allowed in to apply for amnesty.
	That's how nuts this D.C. judge's decision was.
	Who's the judge?
	I'm going to see if I can pull up the name here, but I forgot.
	I read the decision.
	It was like 60-page, 70-page decision, but I actually didn't get down to who the judge was.
	I thought it was Boesberg, but I don't think it, I'm not sure that it is.
	It's one of those other corrupt hacks in the District of Corruption.
	But you certify as a class prospective asylum seekers and then enjoin them from deportation pending adjudication of their asylum claims.
	Yes.
	That's everybody.
	That's literally everybody.
	And you can't deport anyone.
	You can't deport anyone while it's pending.
	And he's extending it to people that have already been deported.
	He's extending it to people that have never even gotten to the country.
	He said that's coming next.
	He says, go take a look at that.
	And his game is the law says specifically he has no jurisdiction over this.
	Congress stripped him.
	And he's like, well, I'm not adjudicating whether the deportation can take place under the INA.
	I'm adjudicating whether it can take place under President Trump's proclamation.
	And I'm going to say that because the INA has the explicit remedy, I now have jurisdiction to rule when the INA says I don't have jurisdiction to rule?
	The Immigration and Naturalization Act?
	It's insane.
	And it's an utter abuse of the class action protocols.
	And of course, still no bonds required for posting these insane injunctions.
	So until the Supreme Court, the conservatives were right.
	And they're going to, unless the Supreme Court gets back involved, they had to get back involved midweek because one of their big decisions where they said you can shift someone to a third-party country, like these criminal, rapist, murderers.
	The judge comes in and stays the order from Supreme Court and says, I'm defending it.
	I hereby declare the Supreme Court.
	I hereby enjoin the Supreme Court.
	That's basically what the judge did.
	But he got so much blowback, he had to transfer it back to another judge.
	That judge was like, no, sorry.
	We're finally why?
	Because the Supreme Court came in for a second time and said, no, even Justice Kagan said, I didn't agree with the original stay.
	But once we issue a stay, no federal judge has the authority to overrule a Supreme Court ruling.
	That's what they were trying to do.
	The issue with the class action certification to get around the original prohibition is that it left the door open to it in that Supreme Court ruling.
	And now they are on queue exploiting of that loophole.
	What's going to be the remedy?
	Like the Supreme Court is out for the summer or they're going to still have to deal with emergency injection?
	Yeah, they're going to have to rule on this because it's so broad, so insane, completely eviscerates everything the president's trying to do on immigration.
	So it's just, you know, they've dramatically, you know, they got alligator Alcatraz down there in Florida.
	That can only put like 3,000 people in, right?
	So I mean, that's purely symbolic.
	I mean, I get it.
	You know, it's DeSantis playing very smart politics to his credit.
	You know, alligator Alcatraz, everybody can imagine that.
	You know, even Trump was saying he was going to, you're going to teach him how to get away from the alligator.
	You got to go this way, not this way.
	Yeah, his advice was wrong, but to set that aside.
	You just got to make sure your little kids are next to you.
	Just outrun them.
	See you later.
	Ethan, good luck.
	Yeah, it didn't win the Darwin Awards this year.
	But what we said was Going to happen.
	It just happened even faster than I thought.
	Maybe it'll take a week or two.
	It took them two days, two days to ignore the Supreme Court.
	We've got to fit the what they really should do is step in, say the concurrences are right, Roberts or Barrett, join them, and say no more of this nonsense with the class actions, no more nonsense, third-party standing in illegal immigration context where it was never intended to apply, where courts were never intended to have this authority.
	All right.
	Which one next?
	We got trans.
	We got a bunch of remands, which are more sort of a summation.
	We got Bivens.
	They issued a dumb Bivens decision at the end of all this.
	Per curry him because none of them have the guts to put their name on such dumb decisions.
	We've got a good dissent by Thomas from a CERT denial on speech for public employees.
	That's really revelatory where this is going.
	The COVID eviction moratorium takings.
	Another, I think it was Gorsuch and Thomas may have both dissented from the denial of CERT on that.
	Denial of CERT by Sodomayor, dissent on a couple of, she gave a couple of good dissents.
	The on controlled substance is a definition sentencing and on Tennessee's jury instruction on manslaughter, which is deeply problematic because of how it burden shifts.
	So, yeah, any of those, plus Marjorie Taylor Greene's census legislation in Wisconsin dealing with the affirmative defense, of course.
	Let's do the trans one for now because I found it quite – The Supreme Court is going to take up a lower court prohibition on, I was saying there were transgender girls, the prohibition of being able to participate in women's sports.
	Boys in girl sports, men in women's sports.
	I just look, fate loves irony.
	And if this is a simulation, this is one hell of a way to make some good jokes in it.
	This is one of the two cases that's going to go up to the Supreme Court.
	Idaho's law similarly targets transgender girls, that's boys, in women's sports.
	Lindsey Heacocks, the name of the transgender boy, the name of the boy who thinks he's a girl is Heacocks.
	Maybe the last name was kind of a clue.
	No man F.O. in another way when they're born, but when God gives you two clothes, nobody's going to take it.
	He wants to flap around his cocks in the ladies' room of the women's sports.
	So two states, Idaho, what was the other?
	Wisconsin, put in legislation.
	There's 27 states now that have passed laws limiting or prohibiting men participating in women's sports, that biological gender shapes your ability to participate in public school sport competitions.
	The indication to that should have also been one of the two cases was a teenager who's taking puberty blockers.
	So one of the indications that there's a biological difference should be that you have to take puberty blockers to become the way you think that your biology ought to have made you, but didn't.
	So you know South Park did an episode on this like the dolphin one?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The one where the two different ones.
	One where South where Cart tries to compete in the Special Olympics and loses, which is even better.
	It's even funnier.
	But the other one is men and women's sports because they combine WWE macho man, but he pretends to be a woman and all the girls have to pretend that he's a woman while he beats the living daylights out of them all.
	And then now we have it for real.
	But the Supreme Court is going to take up, does that violate the 14th Amendment?
	I think they're going to rule that it doesn't and that they're not going to make that crazy.
	Oh, but it does.
	They're going to uphold the bans on the basis that it does not violate.
	And I think they're going to rule that trans has no protected class under the Constitution, which is where we should have been going all along.
	It was never intended that you're being a mental case or having a mental condition has not usually been suspect classification for purposes of the 14th Amendment.
	Physical disability is a protected class.
	No, it's not either.
	I mean, what is a separate protection for people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
	But that's why the Americans with Disabilities Act had to pass is because it's not a constitutionally suspect class.
	Okay, that's interesting because I was going to say, and I'm not trying to be glib, but like you can't discriminate on the basis of mental illness, except to the extent it's necessary.
	Of course, they deny.
	All these people deny that they have a mental illness.
	Well, if they, and one of the arguments that I heard, the best retort to that is they want to argue it's not a mental illness, but also argue that it is so they can get covered by insurance.
	You know, my old buddy, a great legendary lawyer from LA, when he was representing another buddy, Charlie Sheen, that, you know, Charlie was only nice with me.
	I was hanging out with his fiancé at the time.
	I thought, she's a sweetheart.
	And then Lenny Dykstro is me at the time.
	He goes, you know, she's a famous movie star in her own right.
	And I was like, what?
	I didn't understand what movies, because Lenny was more of a fan than I was of such films.
	But if you look at the different components of where the court has been heading on this, I think they'll head in the right direction and will, in fact, rule that men should not be participating in women's sports.
	Soto Moyora is undoubtedly going to come out with and say there is no men in descent, no doubt.
	There is no biological difference between women born male at birth and those.
	And Justice Jackson will be like, what's all this gender stuff?
	Where did this even come from?
	I did not see that.
	Men, women?
	Who is an expert?
	Who knows what a woman is?
	I didn't see any expert report from a biologist in this case.
	Therefore, I cannot determine what's a man or woman.
	Okay, so that's good.
	We'll see where that goes.
	But that's next section.
	So we're like, we might get that, but by June of 2026.
	It will depend on how fierce the debates are.
	So if they get unity quicker, we may get that decision by November.
	If we don't, well, it'll be until May or June.
	And if anybody sees me fiddling with something, this is one of the fossil bones that I found in the Peace River.
	This is a dugong rib, and it's very cool.
	And it smells a little bit like fire, but I don't know why.
	All right, so that's the trans case.
	What were some of the other, some of the, oh, let's do the Bivens case, actually, because I had to refresh my memory as to what Bivens is.
	And that's when you get to sue a federal employee for damages.
	Yeah, because the federal civil rights laws only apply to people who are not federal employees.
	Okay.
	And so the issue is in order to sue a federal employee for conduct committed while they were a federal employee, it has to be a legally recognized torture unless the Supreme Court says there's an exception.
	So the problem makes no sense is we have a Constitution and the Supreme Court has said all federal employees are immune as if they're the king.
	You know, sovereign immunity derives from the doctrine that the king can do no wrong because the king is God on earth.
	That's where Sovereign immunity comes from our entire country was founded against that principle, and yet the corrupt judicial branch has decided to reinforce that principle.
	And thus, they say that unless Congress specifically authorizes it, federal employees are immune from suit even when they knowingly and flagrantly violate your constitutional rights.
	And in my view, when they exceed their constitutional authority, they're no longer operating as federal officials.
	they'd be operating in the guise of and misusing and abusing the power of federal officials.
	But by no means...
	Are you still here?
	I still see you.
	Still there?
	Where's Viva?
	Two hours had rumble kicked off.
	All right.
	That was kick you off.
	Yeah, they've had enough of me.
	Sorry, where are we at?
	Yeah, so I mean, basically, Bibbins is the only way you can sue a federal employee for violating your civil rights unless Congress has provided for a specific relief under the Federal Torrance Claims Act or the like.
	And what the Supreme Court has been doing is walking that back.
	And they're saying, no, you can only sue in these very limited circumstances.
	And they're saying Bibbons is unavailable in almost every other circumstance.
	But this was a prison inmate who was, I don't know, locked in solitary, but alleged that they were physically assaulted while in solitary by prison guards or employees.
	And they denied the Bivens claim on the basis.
	One of the rationales, which I found particularly noxious, was that it would make it very difficult to be a prison guard if you could get sued for physical, for allegedly abusing inmates.
	That's the real mindset of federal judges.
	Even some of the conservatives that I like, like Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas, but particularly Alito and Thomas, can be really bad on criminal defense cases.
	They can forget about the Constitution in these cases.
	And they unfortunately do because they tend to have a hardline position.
	You know, I once politically represented a campaign, helped manage the campaign up, candidate for sheriff in a rural county in Tennessee many years ago when I was a kid college student.
	And he said, he goes, Barnes, you know, they would often say that I beat up these people.
	And he goes, you know, it always looked worse.
	You know, occasionally I would tie people to the back of the car just for a little fun while we're driving about 30 miles an hour.
	But, you know, it goes, it gets overrated, Barnes.
	I was like, yeah, okay, I get it.
	You know, but it's this walking tall kind of stuff that they kind of wink, wink at prisoners being tortured, which is what a lot of the people that suffer from that, you know, Owen Schroer was wrongfully put into solitary.
	Steve Bannon was at times.
	Peter Navarro was at times.
	All of them have now become advocates for reform about prisons.
	In Tennessee, we actually have some very good rules on paper that aren't enforced, but they come from a lot of the Tennessee legislators after the Civil War had been stuck in jails and prisons on both sides.
	You know, some union advocates stuck in Confederate prisons, some Confederate advocates stuck in Union prisons.
	We had a very big split here in Tennessee.
	Originally voted against secession, then changed once the war had begun.
	But East Tennessee, where I'm from, was always against it.
	Tim Burchett, great congressman, who might run for governor.
	But this is, to me, if you act outside of your constitutional authority, you have no immunity period.
	Sovereign immunity is foreign to the very concept of, and there are certain immunities to the balance of powers that make sense.
	There's certain immunity in order to enforce the separation of powers.
	There's certain immunities that make sense in order to be able to discharge your discretionary duties.
	But outside of that, there should never be discretion to violate the constitutional rights of a person, to exceed the constitutional authority you're given.
	To me, I have always opposed that.
	And this is another bad decision without, I don't think, I think not a single judge, justice even dissented from this, which is embarrassing.
	All right, interesting.
	Which other ones?
	There was a bunch of remands, which we'll quickly get to.
	There were about two dozen cases.
	We talked about how some of these cases would impact other cases in the administrative state context, in the standing context, in the civil rights context, in the religious issues implicating schools and government actions context, where there were over two dozen cases where the Supreme Court accepted CERT and immediately remanded, saying you need to rewrite the decision and reinterpret the decision in light of this recent Supreme Court decision.
	So we'll be following those as the appellate courts handle the remands.
	But that's promising given the volume of remands that they did and many of the case examples that they gave.
	The other big, there are four other big cases where justices dissented from the denial of cert.
	Sometimes for procedural reasons, they said they agreed with the denial of cert, but they laid out the legal issues that were implicated.
	And what those dissents do is I always recommend following those dissents because the justices are often taking their time to give you a roadmap to bring a future legal challenge.
	Remember, we went over Thomas's dissents from denials of CERT in the social media context that previewed and presaged a range of challenges to social media going forward.
	So we've got two great dissents from Thomas, and we got two great dissents from Sodomayor on issues of where they denied the CERT petitions, but we'll likely see future legal action aligned with the legal theories they present in their dissents.
	Okay.
	How do we do those decisions?
	So first, did you read the school speech case, the public employee speech case?
	Oh, yes.
	That was someone who posted on Facebook, got fired.
	This was posted on Facebook, political speech before the employment, gets fired, and then sues for First Amendment violation.
	I did.
	Yeah, I mean, wasn't it shocking what the statements were?
	I mean, so if you're a government employee, your First Amendment speech is only slightly restrained.
	It's restrained to the degree the speech can be interpreted as a speech of the government itself.
	And it's otherwise, if it can't be interpreted as government-sponsored speech, then the only way you can suppress it is if it is disruptive of a core governmental function in such a way that can't be remedied except by censorship of the speech or punishment for the speech.
	So that should be very limited or restricted.
	Unfortunately, the Supreme Court present has been all over the place on this, contradictory.
	Justice Thomas dissented, but he noted that if they had properly raised the issue, he thought the petition for cert would have been granted, they didn't present it in the most effective format and didn't challenge the underlying.
	But people should read the dissent because Thomas is giving a roadmap for public employees to make and fix our existing law and reform it.
	Because all this lady, I mean, here's what she did: she made public statements that said, We should have racially colorblind society.
	We should enforce our immigration laws, and gender is real.
	And she occasionally used memes on her personal social media account before she was even a government employee.
	She was fired for this.
	Fired.
	And the first circus said it was just fine because it was too disruptive, her speech.
	Well, and also to highlight, this is the case where the statements were made before she was employed at that particular position.
	It wasn't even made in her capacity as a public employee.
	She wasn't leveraging public employee power to make it.
	She wasn't doing it in the classroom like a lot of the commie leftists do on a regular basis, trying to give you here pervert book number one for the five-year-old pervert book number two.
	And here comes in pervert number three to read the book for you with Drag Queen story time.
	This was all done outside of that capacity and was very moderate speech.
	And as Justice Thomas put it, it's because our standards are all over the place and our standards need to be fixed because what happened here was wrong.
	And this was my favorite quote of Thomas at the end.
	It undermines core First Amendment values to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then, when faced with a dissenting employee in their private life, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption.
	That's what they're doing.
	They're going to say the state has now taken an official position on trans.
	You as a government employee can now not disagree with it or you're being disruptive.
	It is the worst form of coerced censored speech that can exist.
	It's an outrage.
	More justices didn't join his dissent.
	But now part of it was other justices, the way the appeal was presented didn't challenge the question of whether the standard was wrong to begin with, which is what they always should do.
	I always recommend you try to take a bite at every apple when you go up to the Supreme Court.
	But I think he's laying out the roadmap.
	This is a serious problem that needs serious remedy.
	People should look to the Thomas dissent as the legal roadmap for challenging in a go-forward basis.
	Excellent.
	By the way, Robert, I'm following some news that's breaking as we go.
	In relation to the Texas flooding, now the update is up to 80 people have been killed, but Associated Press.
	I know we've had Owen on multiple times.
	We should have Owen on again because he's followed all the weather aspects of this, the various regulatory groups that are connected to this.
	He's followed all of it.
	So he would be, he lives there in Texas, of course.
	Owen Troyer.
	Yeah, Owen Troy.
	Yeah, so we should probably have Owen Troyer.
	I'll reach out to him.
	Yep, I'll DM him as well.
	One of the lines of attack from actual demonic people who are politicizing the death of children is that Trump made NOAA cuts.
	We talked about it earlier.
	And it turns out, I'm just reading this from the Associated Press.
	So fake news is in as much as it is, but when they have to report the truth, they do it all the way at the end of an article.
	Scroll all the way down.
	Weather Service had extra staffers.
	The National Weather Service office in New Brunswicks, which delivers forecasts for Austin, San Antonio and the surrounding areas, had extra staff on duty during the storms.
	Runyon said where the office would typically have two forecasters on duty.
	During clear weather, they had up to five on staff.
	There were extra people in there that night.
	And that's typical in every weather service office.
	You staff up for an event to bring people in overtime.
	If you've seen a time lapse, if you see the time lapse of the flooding, let me see if I can get this up here.
	I would not like to allege there's anything called cloud seeding.
	I know nothing about that whatsoever.
	My sudden being closed off the channel.
	I just want to officially, and the Clintons have not killed anybody.
	Just wanted to make that official.
	By the way, the cloud seeding is straight up real as well.
	The only thing, before I make any statements, I just want to know exactly.
	Apparently they were cloud seeding right in the area.
	Now, and so people appreciate like arid desert land doesn't absorb the water when it comes down in a deluge, which is why it washes away.
	Just have a look at this because it's biblical level stuff.
	This is a time lapse and the time is not.
	The time is wild.
	It just accelerated like wild.
	Look at that.
	Yeah, but the thing is, it's within minutes.
	This isn't within hours.
	People may think this is over hours.
	No, it wasn't.
	It was literally over minutes.
	And this apparently rose 27 feet because if you look from the I will give credit here to the administration.
	Christy Noam and Brooke Rollins have been very proactive on this and making sure they get boots on the ground, making sure they get resources where they need.
	Chip Roy, Congressman, has been very on the ground on this.
	So credit to the Trump administration that they have responded to this.
	They have been much like the media can't wait to blame all natural disasters on Trump.
	trump has been more proactive on handling natural disasters than any president we've had period i it's it's unfathomable how what that that's that's am uh it's up to 80 and where the where the it's um people tweeting out the most inhumane demonic tweets to score political points where a it's about western north carolina eastern because of where because that was very it was mega country and that there's i mean there was talk from inside the administration by
	the administration that was like who cares about these people just fewer votes for the for trump i mean that that's the mindset of mentality of many of these people it's it's it's it's pure demonic behavior evil yeah if you think zelinski is a democrat and putin is a dictator then you have the kind of distorted mindset that leads to thinking it's okay to see flooding of uh poor communities because you think their politics are different than yours uh all right sorry i interrupted you so what what other uh cert decisions the other great uh dissent by justice
	thomas uh gorsuch may have joined it i don't remember which is about remember all the covet eviction moratoriums oh yeah yeah that's right um so hold on i got i i'm now i've read this one we're just gonna brain fart my way out of this one oh robert the covet moratoriums i just don't remember which way they went down the final decision but the covet moratoriums were they didn't take uh they didn't take it up so he just dissented from the denial of cert okay and that's what i where he was he was he was not criticizing but faulting for them not taking it up and saying it's going to this was a clear
	taking issue where they were denying the ability of landlords to evict for covid and it was obviously being used in the abused how do they deny i mean they don't explain why they don't take it up the rationale is well covet's over, it's not going to repeat itself.
	Not really.
	I mean, Thomas said that there were aspects of the way the petition was presented that he understood why the dessert was denied, but he said that at some point we have to take up this issue because when you are excluding some right, what you might call the bundle of property rights, what you call property law, that that bundle, that if there's any taking away of those bundle of rights, you've taken property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment that requires just compensation.
	And that, of course, there was no just compensation for anybody, for any landlord who was not allowed to evict people who weren't paying rent.
	They were basically forced to continue to rent their own property, give over their property to someone who wasn't paying them.
	And in some cases, was destroying the property.
	And it was another one of the insane COVID rules.
	And here again, the Supreme Court has not stepped in to fix it, recognizing that several circuits have recognized correctly it's a taking, but the Ninth Circuit has not.
	And so consequently, unfortunately, that's going to continue to linger as part of the disaster and debacle of COVID laws.
	You know, I'll give Robert Kennedy credit.
	He said he thinks there needs to be a truth and reconciliation commission on COVID.
	And he pointed out, you know, he might have been listening to us.
	He was like, because it came in the context of Tucker Carlson saying, do you think Anthony Fauci could ever face criminal prosecution?
	And Robert Kennedy said, well, he's been given a full pardon going back to 2014.
	He said, however, if there was a truth and reconciliation commission, he could come clean and not be prosecuted.
	Or if he came forward and lied, then he could be criminally prosecuted for that.
	So either he publicly confesses to the world or he goes to prison.
	That would be a great, I think a truth and reconciliation commission would be fantastic for what happened in COVID.
	They did some, I don't know if it's similar, but they had the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada, which I think it's still going on to some extent.
	But they basically had a mini trial, call it bias, because pretty much everybody was trying to prove and demonstrate how this was a hyped up pandemic that the measures caused more harm than good.
	National Citizens Inquiry had all the doctors testifying about the toxicity of the jabs, the harmfulness of the lockdowns.
	And America could stand to follow the lead and do one of their own.
	Absolutely.
	I'd be happy to help with such a commission.
	But yeah, so that will wait for another day.
	Two sodomy or dissents from CERT.
	And then we got Marjorie Taylor Greene's census bill and the coercion affirmative defense issued presented in Wisconsin.
	Coercion.
	Well, okay, so the coercion affirmative defense is on the tip of my brain right now.
	So let's do that one.
	This is a woman who's driving away from her husband, drunk driving, gets pulled over as she speeds past a cop, and she claims that she was coerced.
	She had to drive under the influence or above the legal limit to escape from her abusive husband.
	And the court basically said, no, by the time you were at that point, you were no longer within the range of threat, and therefore your argument for coercion fails, if I can oversimplify it that way.
	Yeah.
	It was another, they have been attempting to eviscerate your affirmative defenses, your right of self-defense in every way they possibly know.
	And one of the latest ways, we'll talk about sort of my ore's dissent, another case that actually implicates self-defense rights as well.
	And one of their creative ways is to undermine the justification defense, the necessity defense, the duress defense, and now the, and self-defense, and now the coercion defense.
	So what that says is the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did something knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and voluntarily, depending on the nature of the criminal law.
	The Justice Sotomayor has very effectively argued, and I agree with her, that the Supreme Court actually requires that for constitutional due process purposes under the Winship Doctrine, the Winship case, where basically the Supreme Court said you had to have a certain level of criminal mensorea in order to put somebody in prison under American law of due process, that your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which what the Declaration of Independence was all about, inalienable rights, rights that could not be given to the state, rights that literally cannot be alienated from you, cannot be given, cannot be sold, etc.
	That one of those rights is the right to life for the due process of law, and that includes the right to present defenses, that you can't go to prison for something you didn't knowingly, willfully, intentionally do.
	And you don't knowingly, willfully, intentionally do something if you're acting under duress, if you're acting under coercion, if you're acting under some form of intoxication in certain instances.
	Now, if you deliberately chose to get intoxicated, that's what effectively you're getting prosecuted for if you later use a vehicle or other things to do so.
	But that's what should be the case.
	And then there's different, you know, whether homelessness was voluntary or involuntary is an issue they dealt with in the constitutional context.
	But in this context, to me, a coercion defense should almost always go to the jury.
	I disagree with judges taking it away from the jury.
	Let the jury decide.
	Number two, it should always be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that coercion didn't exist, that duress didn't exist.
	The reality is this.
	The jury would see all the evidence.
	And the moral of the narrative, they would have been like, okay, she's running away from a lunatic who may murder her.
	And so, yeah, she was under the influence when she got, but what was she supposed to do?
	Wait to find out?
	Is there supposed to be a magical distance when you walk two miles, when you drove two miles?
	Was that enough?
	How are you supposed to know when you have a lunatic that's out to murder you?
	I mean, well, it is there.
	I can see the fine line being there like, okay, two miles, 10 miles, but do you stop for dinner and then go off?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	If you had something like that, then I could see it's a meaningful intervening break.
	But here, but I see them taking it away from the jury, number one, let the jury decide whether that's a movie.
	This sort of marries with a lot of the other issues of denying the defendants their active defenses, and thus you leave nothing of meaning for the jury to deliberate on.
	Yeah, now that she can no longer raise it, she was doing it out of necessity, whether or not 15 miles was too far and pull over and so on.
	It's like we're watching a movie when the person pulls over and they're like, oh, that's too soon.
	It's too soon.
	He's going to catch up.
	He's going to catch up, right?
	In the horror movies or other movies.
	So the idea that it was too far, that there's some legal limit on your assertion of the defense, I don't agree with.
	Constitutionally, I believe the Second Amendment is a right of self-defense and the due process rights combined.
	Mean they can't, you should not be able to be put in prison in America for Something you didn't voluntarily, intentionally, knowingly do, and you didn't voluntarily, intentionally, knowingly do something where coercion, duress, or justification, or necessity, or self-defense were present.
	And those questions should always be resolved factually by a jury, not determined unilaterally by a court, like sadly the Wisconsin court did here.
	Yep.
	And I mean, the idea of stay at home and sober up before you escape your abusive husband might not be that like that's practical.
	I mean, it's all these people live in like Yuppieville.
	You know what I mean?
	Who live in some pretend fantasy land.
	You know, the, you know, I grew up, I mean, so people can be tough and dangerous.
	You either take care of it yourself or get out of Dodge.
	And here you're not being allowed to do that if the cops arrest you somewhere along the way.
	Actually, before, I don't know when you want to get to the Google, the Google data collection, but we can maybe quickly, that's a relatively quick.
	Yeah, that's a good case, too.
	Yeah, I mean, it's amazing.
	I hadn't heard about it until you sent me the links, but they're fined $300 million for illegal data collection after it goes to jury trial.
	I mean, look, the moral of the story is what in this?
	They're going to pay $350 million for illegally harvesting and selling data.
	That'll be the cost of doing business for them.
	And they'll wait until such time as they get caught, tried, and convicted again later on for civil.
	What's the broader takeaway from this other than the fact that Google is still evil?
	To the question, by the way, in the chat, was she in danger or was it an excuse?
	That should be the question for the jury, not for judges to unilaterally take away from the jury.
	But this is another example of how big tech has been monetizing itself based on fraud and theft.
	They've been stealing your identity, stealing your information against your informed consent, selling it and monetizing it to others.
	And they're finally starting to be held accountable in different courts across the country by various smart civil litigators and by various smart state attorney general.
	One critical supporter of this project has been a mutual friend of the show, one and only Mike Davis of the Article 3 project, who is also doing good work improving judicial appointments.
	Because Mike, remember, we don't want any more Amy Coin parrots.
	I remember that, Mike.
	You might have been on the wrong side on that one.
	Just a little reminder.
	I want to improve there, but he's doing God's work.
	And so far here, there's another big win.
	Big tech is built on illegality and criminality.
	That is the nature of their business model, especially Meta and Facebook and Google and YouTube.
	Those two and TikTok, they are all based on illegality and criminality.
	And they should be face the legal consequences of their actions.
	And this is a first, good first step, but only a first step in that course of events.
	Well, they're going to announce they're going to appeal.
	But class action, 14 million, 300 million.
	If I can't do the math, that's like 10, 20, that's like 30 bucks each.
	Oh, no, wait a minute.
	No, that is right.
	10, 10.
	Okay, that's right.
	It's about the monetary value that would be attributed to your personal information.
	People would be surprised at how cheap it is.
	For about 50 bucks, I can get 450 data points on almost any American.
	People give it away for free.
	So it must be easy enough to realize that.
	Like I said, if it's for free, you're the product.
	I've got Ethan saying that over and over again.
	Viva's homeschool of radicalization.
	Sometimes he applies a rule where it doesn't apply.
	And then the rule I'm trying to teach him now is not all rules apply universally across the board, which if I apply my rule, that rule also doesn't apply universally across the board.
	All right.
	So that was Google.
	What else do we have left?
	We got to take the party on over to Viva Barnes' Law.
	We got three left.
	We got two.
	So to my order since, where I agree with her.
	But you'll maybe be surprised on that accord from denials of certs of petition and Marjorie Taylor Greene's major, this is the most significant legislation that could pass other than the big, beautiful bill, which is Marjorie Taylor Greene's proposed new census for 2026.
	All right.
	Take it away.
	What's she proposing?
	So essentially redoing the census.
	So for people that don't know, in 2020, remember the census done during the pandemic.
	Most of the employees they hired were a bunch of commies.
	So what did they do?
	They deliberately inflated the number of people living in Democratic states, deliberately deflated the number of people living in Republican states.
	And an apportionment for electoral votes and House votes was made on those grounds, members of Congress representation.
	So liberal states got too many seats.
	Conservatives got too few seats.
	That was problem number one.
	Problem number two was that they included all the illegals and they apportioned population for illegals and included illegals as equally apportioned as citizens, which meant Democrats representing illegals where they couldn't even vote were given more seats than they were supposed to be constitutionally.
	And so Major Drew Daley Green is like, we need to go back and redo the census, number one, do it correctly and do it the right way this time outside the context of a pandemic with all just commie employees.
	And number two, we need to do it only based on citizens, not based on non-citizens and particularly illegal immigrants.
	What would this do?
	This would massively shift House representation throughout the country.
	And this would mean Democrats would lose potentially 20 seats.
	So they may not be able to take back the House no matter what in 2026, as long as President Trump avoids war.
	Just a little reminder of the good president there on the out of court.
	And then second, we would shift the Electoral College for 2028 so that Democrats would almost be DOA.
	So this is the most legislatively consequential policy that could be instituted in the next year.
	And she, Marjorie Taylor Greene, once again, is taking the lead on this.
	Credit to her.
	Mark Levin is still busy crying about why we're not in regime change with Iran, which is why someone who portrands himself as a constitutional lawyer is not out there advocating on this principle, which he should be.
	The anti-war critic, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is once again a better representative of MAGA than Mark Levin could ever imagine.
	Now, for those who may not be familiar with this and who haven't seen the cartoons from back in the day, how a bill gets passed, she proposes the bill.
	What timeframe is there for them to draft this and pass it before?
	Big key is Trump's got to start using political capital to support it because Mike Johnson doesn't do anything that Donald Trump doesn't twist his arm to do.
	So that's priority number one.
	Priority number.
	And then if Mike Johnson takes it up, how many Democrats want to vote against this?
	I mean, they can, but then they're on the record saying they want illegals counted in the empathy.
	Yeah, well, who cares?
	They've been on the record saying that for forever in terms of the- When this Issue comes up about a third of Democrats vote the other way because they don't want to be perceived as that if they're in close seats.
	But it's a win-win, right?
	You either get Democrats voting against it, which you can hammer the heck out of them with it in the 2026 midterms, or you get the benefit of the legislative reform, which actually allows you to reapportion the House, which substantially corrects so that we have a constitutional conforming apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, which right now we do not have.
	Here, I want to bring this one up because this answers the HEB question from earlier on.
	Yeah, we don't have HEB.
	I don't think we have HEBs in Florida, but when people outside of Texas ask why we're so loyal to a private company like HEB, this is the reason.
	Every disaster we have, they beat the Red Cross and do so much to help born and raise Texas right here.
	See, that's smart marketing.
	That's smart advertising.
	When you actually help ordinary people.
	So yeah, credit to HEB, the Texas grocery store, isn't it?
	There's no greater advertising than when your customers are.
	It's doing good for good people.
	I mean, it's a win-win.
	It's inherently good, and it's usually extrinsically good.
	What do we have left?
	Well, hold on before we.
	Two, so do my orders.
	I'm going to be shocked that I'm citing somebody I consider the third dumbest judge on the Supreme Court in its history.
	Take them away.
	So one is on sentencing that our control.
	And here, Barrett joined her.
	Credit to Justice Barrett.
	Controlled substances have a wacky, crazy, across-the-board definition in our sentencing guidelines.
	And they won't fix it.
	And so people are getting all kinds of wild sentences based on different things being called controlled substances at different times.
	So I find, so I agree with Sotomayor and Barrett's dissent.
	Sorry, it needs to be fixed.
	It's too bad the Supreme Court didn't take it to fix it right now.
	This is the dissent to accepting the cert, which was to get clarification on how they define controlled substances.
	Did I understand from that case that there was a technical excuse for why they hadn't given some uniformity?
	They said, well, we didn't do it within a certain timeframe, but give us a little more time and we'll do it.
	They still should have done it themselves, but they're giving basically the sentencing commission one more year to fix it.
	After that, I think the Supreme Court will take it up and they should.
	The second aspect is a Tennessee case, the jury instruction on manslaughter.
	It relates right back to our coercion case.
	And the other case we've been talking about is a thematic basis where the Second Amendment right of self-defense outside of the gun context has not been consistently enforced.
	I see the great Robert Barnes was right meme from Amy Coney Barrett.
	She likes to share that often as she's reminded of her own sad disgrace and most of her decisions.
	Not all, but too many.
	But what happens in Tennessee is they basically structured a jury instruction concerning a variation of self-defense, which means a lesser action of manslaughter can be when you have reasonable provocation, but other aspects of self-defense don't fit.
	But they've effectively screwed up the jury instruction so that it shifts the burden to the defendant.
	And that is unconstitutional.
	And I agree with Justice Sotomayor.
	They should be taking it up.
	Now, she said they didn't take it up, and she agreed with them not taking it up because it wasn't cleanly presented as that legal issue.
	But she said that legal issue, had it been properly presented, would have been grounds for cert because we need to reinforce the windship principle that you need to have a complete, robust defense as a defendant.
	You shouldn't be put in prison for asserting your constitutional right of self-defense and your right of due process of law, life and liberty with due process of law, which protects against criminal prosecution and punishment based on things you did not voluntarily, intentionally, and knowingly do.
	Well, but Tom to send your point on this.
	Is the argument that once you raise self-defense, it's up to the state to prove that it wasn't self-defense?
	Always.
	Always.
	And that's the windship principle.
	But what it is, is in all these little areas, sub-areas, they water it down and they create a new, and judges get confused and they call it an affirmative defense.
	And here we've got some old bad law, case law in Texas Supreme Court, Tennessee Supreme Court.
	Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has said Tennessee Supreme Court needs to fix this because it doesn't make any sense and it's probably unconstitutional in the Supreme Court doctrine.
	Now, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals had any cojonas and they don't.
	They would have followed the U.S. Supreme Court.
	You don't have to follow Tennessee Supreme Court precedent when U.S. Supreme Court precedent contradicts it, right?
	U.S. Supreme Court here, Tennessee Supreme Court here, right?
	It's that simple.
	But, you know, they never have any guts, so they don't do it.
	And so, but I agree with Sotamayor that this is a violation of the one-ship principle of intent.
	And we need to create a robust.
	I mean, I take a lot of cases solely on these issues where like in the case about the tape recording in Pennsylvania, about being able to tape record your own court proceedings.
	And not only am I arguing that's a First Amendment right, but I'm also arguing that should be part of your justification defense.
	The justification defense has always been if what you did better served public policy in the community than the criminal law seeking to punish you would, then you have a full justification as a defense to what you did.
	And it's always the burden of the government under a burden of reasonable, beyond reasonable doubt.
	The government must prove the lack of such a defense.
	You don't have to prove the presence of such a defense.
	The government has to prove its lack.
	And unfortunately, too many lower courts have diluted and diminished that to make it easier and easier for the government to put you in prison and to effectively gut your Second Amendment rights outside of the strict context of gun rights.
	Because to me, the Second Amendment is not just about gun rights.
	It's about your right to defend yourself.
	And you combine that with the First and Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
	It's your right against state wrongful punishment and prosecution for things that should not be and cannot be crimes.
	All right, people, we're going to bring the party on over to the vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Where we will answer all tips of 50 coins or more, $5 or more.
	We usually get to even more than that.
	So just put in a tip and we'll get to your question no matter what it is.
	And again, if you want a troll, all you got to do is pay the toll and we'll even answer the trolls over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We got to raid somebody.
	Let me see if Nerd Roddick is still live.
	Let me refresh.
	He'd be great to raid.
	Yeah, let's in Cryptus.
	He might have just ended.
	Let me see.
	No, they look like they're still alive.
	Encryptus, if we can raid Nerd Roddick.
	The comic book owner originally moved from California to Texas.
	Wife, great salon person there.
	Gave that all up to get out of Camifornia.
	Nerd Roddick, follow on Rumble, YouTube, elsewhere on social media.
	Brilliant commentator does Friday Night Tights, which is very popular within the gaming community and the entertainment community and the comic community.
	Like others that we've interviewed on here, Eric July and others that are putting Critical Drinker, putting out their own screenplays, own books, own comics, other stuff like that too.
	Geeks and Gamers, great part of that community.
	Ryan Cannell, RK Outpost, another great member of that community.
	A bunch that we've interviewed here.
	Dune Kock that we've interviewed here.
	So they had a lot of fun.
	But yeah, Nerd Roddick would be a great community to raid if we can.
	Go raid him if we can do that.
	And let me just give the link for everybody who wants to come over to locals.
	There was one thing I was going to do.
	Oh, yes, there were a couple of CommiTube chats.
	Hoping you will send a message, tag X, saying principal pond wrongfully suspended.
	I'm going to have a look at that.
	I don't know what that is.
	And hell yeah, it says contemporary compendium.
	That's my HEB.
	And let me just go see if we're going to do this right.
	Robert, do you have any appearances coming up this week?
	Potentially, potentially.
	Not yet.
	Nothing particularly planned other than Bourbons Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night at Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
	Perfect.
	We've raided it.
	We're going to end it now.
	Come on over, people.
	Louis the Lobster, Viva Fry events 1776.
	Sports picks, you know what to do, where to go.
	My schedule is going to be back on the three o'clock schedule all week.
	I'm back at home and going to be live.
	I know some people are asking her why promote other fundraising events.
	It's because these are good causes and good events.
	No one's obligating you to do so.
	No one's forcing you to do so.
	But I know a lot of people who like to be made aware of causes and important people that they can help support.
	And that's what supporting them is about.
	And I know some people don't want to hear that.
	Some people, you know, that's fine.
	You're not obligated to support anybody.
	You don't have to be a decent human being.
	But if you want to be and you have the means to, not asking anybody to give, if you only give $2, give $2.
	But I think people like Give, Send, Go, Kimmy Guy, you're supporting a good person, a good cause that shows the value of our community.
	That's the other part of the purpose of it.
	It's to leverage the value of our community.
	The left does this very well.
	It's time people on the independent libertarian right match that.
	The populist side match that.
	That we can leverage our support.
	Look what the Amish do.
	They all get together to support each other.
	It keeps the community alive and afloat.
	It's an important value.
	It's not just some fundraising technique.
	So the, you know, Dan Montino might think I do things for clicks.
	But no, Dan, I just want to know.
	Where are those Epstein files?
	At this point, I'm blaming Bondi because I think Dan's biggest issue here is I don't think he has the power.
	And I think.
	That may be true.
	Tell him Bondi.
	Pay him Barbie.
	Got to get to work.
	Can't be an empty Barbie box for long.
	Robert, this is being auctioned off for the 1776 event.
	And I just lifted it up for the first time.
	There's a signature on the bottom of it.
	So I don't know if that was electric, you guys, but this is going to be auctioned off.
	So people, you know, Burgerwood Barnes, really cool sculptures, a lot of cool stuff.
	So if you get a chance to make it, that's always great.
	You support the 1776 Law Center, which supports a lot of good causes, a lot of good cases.
	That's the goal is to help create an independent model that's not sugar daddy driven, that's not big donor driven, that's community driven, so that we can make these sustainable reforms and remedies.
	That's why we do it.
	If I was in the moneymaking business, I wouldn't be on the show.
	I would be in quiet, in private, working for big, big rich people living in Malibu by the beach doing tax representation.
	I'm here because I believe in the causes and ideas and ideals that matter, like most of the people that are in this community.
	And we will always share opportunities where you can help maximize your leverage in the court of public opinion.
	We are updating and we're going to get to the tip questions on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	People, thank you all for being here.

▲