Viva & Barnes - Ep. 280: RFK Jr. Senate Hearing! Activist Fed Judges! Epstein Victims DEBACLE! & MORE! Viva & Barnes

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 7, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:55:06

Ep. 280: RFK Jr. Senate Hearing! Activist Fed Judges! Epstein Victims DEBACLE! & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, not since the red, not the red dress.
	The gold dress blue dress has the internet stirred so much controversy.
	Not since the Laurel Yanny audio video has there been such disagreement over one and the same video.
	Behold, the father of the man who baseball Karen caused him to give her the ball after the video, which we're gonna watch as well here.
	Enjoy this.
	I wasn't very happy that we had to give it to her, but we can't win.
	She was gonna get it anyways.
	Sorry.
	He wasn't gonna take it, but we did I decided to give her the ball.
	I uh I I apologize to you.
	But it was the right thing.
	We just wanted her to go away.
	Yeah.
	And it worked out.
	You got a bat.
	Yeah.
	Pretty cool.
	Dad, do you have any regrets giving the ball back?
	Um, like I said, it's you know.
	That was what we were there for.
	We were there to get a home run ball.
	So I I thought I had accomplished this great thing, and putting in his glove meant a lot, and that all she was just so adamant and loud and yelling and persistent and I just didn't want to deal with it anymore.
	You know, there was hundreds of people, you know, just staring and like I said, she was very, very, very close.
	And I'm, you know, I'm dad of the family, so I didn't want to do something I regret.
	And that was the choice I made is to just hand the ball back and tell her go away.
	There, the internet.
	I mean, first of all, it's ridiculous that in the broader scheme of things, this has garnered as much attention as it has, and people were like clamoring for the doxing of the woman.
	Do we know who this woman is?
	This is an interview that the father gave shortly after the incident.
	If you haven't seen the incident, I'm gonna bring that down.
	That was Jack Pasobic who brought that up and said, uh, son of the Phillies father.
	I wasn't very happy to give it to her.
	We can't win.
	She was gonna get it anyways.
	The body language here is a Greek tragedy.
	People are accusing the father of not having been manly enough of having been startled.
	Hold on, something.
	There's like there's a four-angle analysis coming from I'll give everybody this link right here.
	Uh, here we go, Casey.
	How do I do that?
	No, you took it from me.
	I'm in my scene.
	I think the funniest thing about this is how do I get the volume down here?
	It's Elizabeth Warren.
	That's the moment.
	That's the moment.
	Whose hand was on the ball?
	Whose hand was on the ball?
	The old oh, look at her, look at her.
	That's my ball.
	You took it from me.
	Now, there is an angle to this here where she's she's quite clearly um I I think the word is a bitch.
	I mean, she's quite clearly the fact that it's grown adults fighting over a baseball at a baseball game.
	Now, I appreciate it would be a memorabilia of a moment.
	I appreciate that a father wanted to give the ball to his son, and then they can behold that ball for the rest of their respective lives, and when that son is an 80-year-old man, he'll hand down that baseball to his grandson and he'll say, This is what my father did for me 60 years ago, or a 75 year.
	It's a flipping baseball.
	There's an element of idolatry to this.
	The the viral video of the guy who got the ball, and then he uh as quickly as he got the ball, he's like, Yes, yes, yes, and then he gave it to a girl behind him.
	Because at the end of the day, it's a flipping baseball.
	The reality is, you know, it the memory would have always been there.
	That baseball probably gets lost in uh uh you know a week or two, and if it doesn't, if it's put on a pedestal, if it's framed in an airtight box that is UV resistant, it's a form of idolatry.
	The only question is did the father impart that message onto his son uh as eloquently?
	The internet going crazy looking to dox this woman.
	Now, apparently she was involved in another altercation at a ball game.
	Something tells me she won't be getting involved in any future altercations at ball games because the identity of the bitch is known.
	I mean, she she's quite clearly uh a foul, unpleasant woman person, and if it were a guy, you know, I might even call a guy the bitch as well.
	Anyone making that much of a scene over a baseball at a baseball game.
	And I say this as someone who enjoys uh collecting fossils.
	Except these are memorabilia from God and not man-made arbitrary things.
	I collect baseball cards or UFC fighting cards.
	It's idolatry, and we as mature adults should assess it as much.
	That she came up to him and he got startled.
	Some people are saying this is the end of masculinity.
	This man should have stood up for his son and said, I'm keeping the ball.
	You lay your hands on me and we'll go fisticuffs.
	I don't know.
	I'm fairly certain under such circumstances, I probably would have done something similar, and you can call me a sissy Canadian.
	I would have said to my son, son, this is a stupid ball.
	And anybody who places this much value over this ball clearly has something else going on in their lives that is making them miserable, insufferable, probably divorced.
	Here you go, ma'am.
	Take the ball.
	I'll go buy my son a gold baseball if I want.
	But um, that is what's making the news.
	My only observation is the woman acted like a bitch.
	There's no question about it.
	I think the father acted perfectly fine.
	You know, in as much as humanly possible, listen to the words of Desiderata.
	Avoid conflict in as much as humanly possible.
	How much of a fight is it worth getting into over a freaking baseball at a baseball game?
	That's a matter of principle.
	I gotta show my son what it means to be a man.
	Sometimes what it means to be a man is avoiding conflict with hysterical idiots.
	Sometimes what it means to be a man is to teach a kid.
	This would have been nice.
	The moment has already been, on the one hand, great and achieved.
	I got the ball, I gave it to you.
	Now it's been sullied by Karen.
	Give her the ball.
	Let her have that ball as a memorabilia of her bitchiness that the world has now seen, and we will go on, father and son and enjoy the game.
	In the uh chat over at Viva Borne's Law, they're calling me girly men.
	And then the other thing is like, you guys, like she could be a crazy, like she's one thing to be a biotch.
	She could be a crazy violent one.
	And I don't know, shove.
	And then someone falls and hits their head.
	You know, I started bowling in a bowling league.
	And uh, first of all, I love it.
	Second of all, um just like that.
	Someone at the bowling alley in the league fell over and smashed their head against the rail.
	Ambulance had to come the whole, the whole, the whole nine yards.
	Like a shove over a baseball could lead to unforeseen consequences that are not likely but predictable.
	And for what?
	It's a baseball.
	I think the moral of the story to the kid is do not place uh godly values in earthly objects.
	This is it.
	Hold on, Andrew Bronco is gonna do a video.
	You might want a live stream.
	I want to go watch it today.
	Uh, you know, there were some people saying his his startled shows effeminate men.
	You know, first of all, you you get startled to a hysterical woman in a way that you uh in a different way than you get startled to, like a frothing rabid dog who's coming at your children.
	But uh that was the story of the day.
	It's quite hilarious in a sad, tragic um way.
	The internet is ablaze trying to dox a woman, ruin her life, get her fired.
	Uh something tells me that woman has other things going on in her life that are probably gonna result in her being a very, very unhappy person.
	And at the end of the day, the old expression, would you rather be right than happy?
	You could have kept that ball.
	Pry it from my cold hand, itch bay.
	Um, or you have a son see that his father is not going to engage in unnecessary quarrel over objects.
	But maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe I'm a sissy, maybe uh my son would look up to me and say, Dad, I will never forget the day you gave away that baseball.
	My entire life would have been different had I had that ball.
	Ladies of the gentlemen, ladies of the gentleman, ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, we have a noon show today because I think Barnes had um travel plans.
	Let me just see what the chat has to say about this.
	The dad and son definitely got the better end of the deal.
	Karen has proven the meme correct.
	It was she looks like uh Elizabeth Warren.
	She sounds like Elizabeth Warren.
	She dresses like Elizabeth Warren.
	Oh, they doxxed her, they say?
	Okay.
	She looks deranged.
	The father did the smart thing.
	Let later down in life they will have a good laugh.
	Absolutely.
	He would have lost that ball.
	I mean, I got kids.
	What was the line from Fight Club?
	Like it's the most important thing on earth.
	And then, you know, two weeks later, it's um in a in a in a bin at a goodwill session.
	Section, whatever you know, getting at.
	All right, I'll forget, but we've done enough about that.
	Look, before we get started with the show today, people.
	No, I want to see this.
	It's not the baseball, it's the attitude.
	Don't stand for it.
	What are you gonna do, Scott Halloween?
	You're gonna get into a physical altercation with a crazy Biach over a baseball?
	Like it's not it's not because she's a woman that she's not potentially dangerous.
	Yeah, I mean, this is totally different circumstances, but back in Montreal, it's a story that I remember from childhood.
	There was a woman getting mugged in Montreal, right on St. Catherine and Peel at uh the ATM.
	And uh uh, you know, a brave man decides to intervene and prevent the person from snatching the purse of this woman.
	He gets stabbed in the neck and dies.
	And I know this because he had dogs.
	We used to see the dogs up at the summit, the summit circle.
	And for the rest of those dogs' lives, they were continually looking for their owner because he wanted to be what a man is and stand up for a woman who's getting mugged of her purse and uh few hundred bucks, get stabbed in the neck, dead.
	One one little pop in the neck.
	We're gonna talk about this today because it's happened in another situation.
	Okay.
	She was like a Chihuahua attacking.
	You can kill it with the ease, but you shouldn't do it.
	Okay, enough about the baseball lady.
	I don't know what her name is, and I don't care to.
	Doxing her, this is like there are there are bigger there are bigger stories to put on national and international amplification, and we're gonna deal with a bunch of them today.
	But before we get there, people, uh, I want to thank the sponsor of today's show.
	And I want to bring up the QR code thingy thing that everyone is supposed to go scan because it will bring you right to the website.
	Kimchi One from Brightcore.
	I've had on uh the doctor, I think it was a doctor from the two of the people the the founder, Kim Bright.
	They're amazing people, amazing company.
	And many of you may or may not know that there is a battle between good and bacteria that can determine your health, and it's going on in your gut.
	Kimchi One from Brightcore Nutrition is a fermented superfood.
	Your body needs to arm the good guys with the right weapons to defeat the bad actors once and for all.
	It contains over 900 strains of beneficial bacteria in each.
	What's the word?
	I think it's a capsule is the word, not a pill, but it's like the things and it contains the bacteria, their live strands.
	I asked how they know they test and make sure.
	Kimchi One supports healthy digestion, fortifies your immune system, and helps detoxify your body.
	Kimchi has also been shown to reduce the risk of obesity and promote smaller waistlines by curbing appetite and naturally boosting your metabolism.
	Kimchi 1 is all natural, made in the USA and non-GMO.
	It's amazing.
	I highly recommend it.
	All good stuff starts in your gut.
	We we discovered this through COVID, actually, that the but gut biome is determinant in health.
	Putting fermented superfoods in your gut helps every aspect of your health, your skin, your hair, your mental performance, and you can do it the natural way.
	Today you can get an exclusive offer by clicking on the link below there.
	Go to that thing.
	25% off.
	But if you call in at 888-501-2209, you can get up to 50% off.
	They have real people, real phones, and they answer all of your questions.
	888-501-2209.
	One more time.
	888-501-2209.
	Link is in the description.
	Check it out, people.
	Uh, let me do one thing before uh Biggie D Barnes gets here.
	Make sure he's got it.
	Just gonna tell him here.
	Ready when you are, smiley face.
	I want to know what his travel plans are.
	Uh let me tell you a few things of that are up and coming for me.
	Uh in terms of uh speaking events.
	I'm gonna be in Calgary at We Unify, and uh that's gonna be fantastic, but I'm gonna be in New Orleans in November at a conference, which is gonna be phenomenal, and I want to give everybody the link.
	It's an affiliate link because they gave me an affiliate link.
	And yeah, I'm a speaker there.
	It's gonna be amazing.
	It's like sort of a plan B financial conference.
	Uh, there's also another one coming up in Lugana, which I don't expect anybody to go to their way to see.
	But this one is gonna be, I mean, as in getting to Switzerland is a little bit tougher.
	New Orleans 2025 Investment Conference, November 2nd to November 5th.
	And apparently, I've got the uh I don't I don't want to jinx it.
	I think I've got like the the prime time on the fifth.
	It's gonna be fantastic.
	Uh you got Matt Taibi who's gonna be there.
	Who else do I know?
	St. Ange, I know from Twitter.
	There's a bunch of uh George Gammon right over here.
	Oh, I'm not circling the right thing.
	So it's gonna be an amazing conference.
	Uh, and I'm gonna give everybody the link if you can make it down, because it might require some planning.
	It's in New Orleans.
	I have never been to New Orleans.
	And I'm gonna see New Orleans for the first time.
	Viva needs gut fortification, says Chris Banks.
	Uh, all right.
	Now we should be live across all platforms and just make sure we we are.
	Let me go to locals and see what's going on here.
	We got job of the hut from uh.
	I'll read the chat here.
	Friggin' douchebags, I have nothing against women or whomever, but she was way out of line with her ranting over a ball, must have been desperate.
	Probably was.
	I mean, you know, we won't belabor the point, but you imagine what has to be going on in someone's life for them to be such rapacious Biaches uh to strangers, to strangers who could be more dangerous than them.
	That's things like when someone's that crazy, you gotta assume they're crazy because everyone who's sane should operate on the basis that they have no idea how much crazier the person is that they are interacting with.
	Okay, before we get into the show, we're gonna have a bunch of good stuff today.
	I wanted to talk about one story that just came up.
	It's I'm doing a vlog on it.
	I'm gonna do a car vlog on it later today, but I'll figure I should you know tackle it while we're live today.
	Um former city Boston uh former Boston City councilwoman, counselor, maybe it's not a councilwoman, it's a counselor.
	Did you hear about this?
	This is an amazing thing where uh A, the corruption is uh uh abounds.
	People say you like Viva, I posted it to Twitter earlier or to locals, and like people's like, you have no idea how bad it is in Boston.
	I think I do.
	But if you haven't heard about this story, former Boston city counselor sentenced to one month in prison for corruption charges.
	I'm gonna show you some of the info that's coming out on this is phenomenal.
	People are gonna go with uh whatever angles they want to.
	We're just gonna go with the story.
	Former District 7 Boston City Counselor Tanya Fernandez Anderson, sentenced to Friday to one month in prison, followed by three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to federal theft and wire fraud.
	The charges reduced from six to two after a plea deal earlier this year.
	See when they got the plea deal.
	Want to see who?
	April 8th.
	Now we're gonna go back here.
	Uh, are we looking at the same thing still?
	Yes, we are.
	Uh, kickback scheme in which Fernandez funneled a bonus to a staff member, then took a portion of the money for herself.
	She resigned.
	Wait until you hear her apology in court.
	And she gets up there and sobs.
	And because people have bleeding hearts, when we always say in law, when they're crying, they're lying.
	But set that aside, she resigned on the 4th of July after entering a guilty plea and went mostly silent, save for a major interviewer, and she reportedly refused to answer questions about her charges.
	Inside the courtroom, Fernandez adds tearfully pleaded forgiveness from God.
	And for mercy from the court.
	This is where I, you know.
	Characterizing herself as a hardworking woman who tried to care for her family and as someone who was hesitant to speak about her charges for fear of saying the wrong thing.
	None of that makes any sense, but wait until you hear when she pulls out the race card.
	I'm sorry she said her eyes down, Cassiata yet.
	From her peachy pink hijab.
	Her sobbing testimony moved several people in the packed courtroom to tears.
	After an hour and a half, Fernandez was asked reporters to stop writing about her case.
	I'm asking you for the love of God.
	That's the second time using the Lord's name in what I would say is vain.
	Just let the story go.
	Don't talk about the corruption.
	Don't talk about how I broke the law, how I stole public money.
	Don't talk about it.
	Be quiet and move on.
	It happened.
	I took responsibility.
	She said, Well, part of taking responsibility means talking about it and sure as hell not shutting people up about it.
	She said, adding that the media should also strive to more accurately cover stories involving black people.
	Capital B black people.
	I don't understand why they capitalize that.
	So she's invoking God.
	Now she's invoking black people saying, appealing to both.
	Ask for response to receiving one month in prison.
	She said everything that happens is for a reason.
	Everything.
	The sentence handed down by Judge Indira Talwani represents a departure from both the harsher penalty prosecutors recommended and the lighter penalty Fernandez and her ass they asked for.
	Fernandez Anderson and her public defender Scott Lauer had asked for a term of probation without prison, as she is unemployed and lacks the ability to pay and with special conditions like completion of substantial amount of community service.
	Prosecutors had recommended punishment of one year and one day in prison, three years, supervised release, 13,000 in restitution, 200 and special assessment.
	In a separate sentencing, man.
	Fernandez Anderson's crime is especially egregious because she clearly exploited the wide and expansive discretion and that she enjoyed over her office's budget to stuff her own pockets.
	How much do they do it for?
	How much is the the price of one's soul to steal?
	Prosecutors also pointed to other issues like incidents of campaign account fraud, the omission of 11,000 in income earned in 2021 from her taxes, and the hiring of her sister and her son in her city council office against city policy and ethics rules.
	She was ordered to pay 5,000 for that violation.
	Her bribe scheme cannot be chalked up to inexperience or ignorance.
	Instead, it is part of a pattern of putting herself first at the expense of her constituents.
	You know what the um truly kick in the teeth part about this story is that um the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs pointed out.
	Here, hold on one second.
	Let me let me bring it up here on my uh in the replies to my tweet.
	She lived in the U.S. illegally for 30 years, and I'm not I cannot vet this.
	This is just a reply, but there seems to be some substantiating evidence in it coming from Wikipedia, became a naturalized citizen in 2019.
	She should have her citizenship revoked and be deported.
	Tanya Fernandez Anderson, born in Cape Verdean, born a is a Cape Verdean born American politician, nonprofit executive, and convicted fellow.
	I mean that's those are the three that you want.
	Foreigner, not profit, and you're a thief.
	She served the city council of Boston Yeti Yeti, a 7th District.
	A Democrat.
	I'm not saying that only Democrats are guilty of crimes, people, but my goodness, there seems to be a propensity for being guilty of crimes and defending criminals.
	We'll get into it.
	She was elected in 2021.
	Yada yada.
	She was the first practicing Muslim and first former illegal immigrant elected to the council.
	I mean, how how much worse can uh can someone be to represent their community?
	This is uh, you know, bringing it back a little bit to the beginning before Barnes pops on here.
	We were at a uh I was at a casino with my father because we used to go to this place called Turning Stone Casino up in uh northern New York State, not actually for the gambling, uh for the golf, because they had the best golf course I've ever been to.
	Uh and we did play a little bit of poker, but you know, very within very cheap limits because I do not like losing money.
	Um let the let the stereotypical jokes go.
	But then what happens is we're at a table, and there's a very drunk uh Hasidic Jew, black hat, payus, everything.
	C C acting very badly.
	Representing a very clear, identifiable community badly.
	And my father says to me in a very loud voice, because it wasn't directed uh to me, but it was directed at me.
	He says, You know, son, you have to remember that you represent a community uh with a history, a shared history of 5,000 years, describing the Jewish community.
	Now, he was saying it to me loud enough for the guy to hear, and the guy knew he's like, What did you say?
	And my dad's like, No, nothing, nothing.
	I'm just talking to my son.
	You come in as an illegal immigrant representing the Muslim community, wearing your peachy pink hijab, and you steal shit that is public funds.
	And then and then invoke the name of God while you've literally desecrated the God you purport to believe in.
	I can't imagine anything much worse than that.
	And then black people.
	Stop covering the story and um in the name of God and black people.
	All right, well, that's it.
	Uh Robert is in the backdrop.
	Let's see when he's gonna pop in.
	Anytime.
	Let me see what's going on in the uh tip questions.
	We got a tip one that says rare photo of Viva covering for Barnes when he's a bit late.
	So hold on, I gotta show this one.
	This is from our Viva Barnes Law.locals.com community.
	Robert, hold on one second.
	This is classic.
	Yeah, this is a no, I I know the crowd starts claiming Barnes, and then they're like, shut up, Viva, bring on Barnes.
	Uh, that's fantastic.
	Thank you very much.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	So do I ask?
	You have uh you have uh travel plans this afternoon?
	No, the uh uh the uh uh I know what it is.
	Uh the is uh I get a birthday party I gotta go to.
	Okay, awesome.
	But I know that was no I thought for a second I thought important game that I was not aware of.
	How did you do my my picks for yesterday's fight?
	Well, uh slightly over 50, but not particularly good.
	No, no, I think they were profitable.
	I think that uh didn't, I think I think they turned out profitable.
	I think they did because you know the one I picked the uh Imavov, hold on one second.
	Yeah, was Imav for the win.
	Uh that was the one I took a little flack for, but so long as I'm slightly better than uh you know uh a monkey throwing darts at a dogboard, I'll be happy with it.
	But I am happy that Benoit Saint-Denis won, even though I didn't vote for him or pick him because hold on.
	I was like, oh yeah.
	I've got a Benoit Saint-Denis, numbered 11.
	What is it, 19 of 25 people?
	So Ben was Saint-Denis, the Frenchman defying what the French have historically done, actually won in battle by submission.
	All right, Robert, how goes it?
	What do we have on for the menu today?
	So I think that the uh top topic, uh, the at the uh board at the Viva Barnes Law.locals.com uh was about the you know vaccine related issues.
	We have a the Supreme Court maybe considering a petition concerning the religious uh exemption.
	We have Florida stepping up and taking even more uh dramatic action concerning vaccine mandates for school children.
	And then of course, uh Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. was in in there up against the Senate as Big Pharma continues to try to conspire to uh get us further uh uh uh you know down their path.
	So we get the vaccine issues, second set of issues is all the different, different another quartet of uh Trump decisions this week.
	Some good, some bad, some restraining, some loosening.
	So the uh we had you know, trying to change foreign aid funding, trying to change immigration policy again, uh the uh trying to to dictate who he could put on certain commissions and who he has to remove and so forth, uh, even personnel decisions.
	Then we get, of course, that Judge Breyer that uh decided that he was gonna weigh in again.
	Uh you know, even though he got reversed, he went forward with his like show trial and decided uh he had a decision about how Trump was using the National Guard in LA.
	DC is suing Trump about how he's using the National Guard in DC, and now Trump is talking about maybe using it as a model across the country.
	So we have all the legal issues there.
	Then we have after the school shooting, uh we had or church, I think it was a uh church technically, the uh we have uh uh basically another proposal for red flag laws, but this time disguised as a ban on trans owning guns.
	The we have all the issues there.
	We have uh, I guess we're gonna go uh, you know, the the one issue that blew up over the weekend was was uh our use of force in Venezuela legal or not, or in the international waters off the coast of Venezuela.
	We've got that.
	We've got Bolsonaro's gonna go on trial in Brazil, uh a range of other foreign law topics that uh uh including the tariffs on India that uh sort of developed on its own issue, which has uh transitioned into another separate new possible topic tonight, which is my I have to sue somebody on social media for the various lies and libels that are being told in the certain directions for certain causes.
	Uh we can get into that.
	Uh then we've got the Epstein files, we've got Google getting out of trouble and getting into trouble in the same week that they were at the White House.
	Bill Gates uh getting to visit the White House.
	He, of course, in the middle of all the vaccine stuff.
	So the uh so more than enough issues to cover the landscape today.
	If we start with one that I don't know if it's on the menu, but I it was in your um the uh Barnes brief on Friday, which I which I did not uh catch the update on it.
	It was John Bolton.
	Uh they raided his house and now they filed, they they posted a filing with the itemizer list of stuff that they took from his house, uh hard drives, handwritten notes, uh USBs.
	So it's becoming increasingly clear, at least uh according to many, including Peter Navarro, that this is going to relate to possession of classified information and possible um unlawful disclosure of it in the context of his book.
	Uh the question that I had in this was to the extent he was in possession of classified information, we don't need to worry so much about the the five-year statute of limitations because that runs can say continuously so long as he possesses it unlawfully.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And so the consensus is that they're going to charge him sooner than later with uh something related to uh improper handling of classified information.
	Correct.
	It's amazing I I missed the update, and uh I might have to do a follow-up on that one too, because I it couldn't happen to a better person.
	Okay, Robert, um, so that's the update on Bolton, everybody.
	We're gonna pay attention to that.
	Another update, which uh it's gonna be a quick one.
	Raja Jackson has not yet been charged.
	I was gonna start with the video of Rampage Jackson.
	Uh can you understand it?
	I mean, I like uh can you do you think you do you think there's a chance he doesn't get charged because it's LA and they're all a bunch of woke wackos?
	Yes.
	If there's a market for that, I'm putting everything I have on him getting charged, and I might have a hand in reminding the LAPD.
	I I looked into Kane Velasquez's story for those who there's a lot of people who didn't know about it, but he went to jail for I ultimately is gonna do one or two years because he was given 1293 days of credit, where he chased down and shot at the vehicle of the man who had been molesting his son, but that vehicle had the other guy's father in it, and so he got charged with a bunch of things.
	And I think even the judge said, I don't want to sentence you, but I have absolutely no choice, and he's serving one to two years right now.
	But you take that, where I think many people say that's a righteous case of uh of use of violence, full full brunt of the law, and Jack Roger Jackson, despite his father saying he needs to serve some time in jail, still on the loose.
	Okay, uh Robert, we'll start with RFK Jr. because it'll bleed into everything else before the Senate.
	What was the it was the Senate Finance Committee?
	What exactly were they trying to flesh out with that?
	Uh, by or is it just a thinly veiled pretext to come out and berate RFK Jr.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It was part of a plot that's been afoot ever since uh Robert Francis Kennedy was recommended and was part of the nomination team because he was part of the election team.
	Uh from that moment, they've always been plotting how could they try to stop him.
	They tried the first time, they were unsuccessful.
	So then it became when can we sabotage him?
	When can we run him out?
	When can we get him out?
	He is sort of the main hurdle to the sort of corrupt big pharma controlled institutional uh Senate.
	And so the uh the you have the finance committee be he's at a uh he has he's both under the health committee and the finance committee in the Senate, given what his position entails as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the because he spends a range of budgetary items.
	So that's how the finance committee ends up in charge.
	But the uh, but these are just show hearings solely in that they thought they had an opportunity.
	They uh uh with the MRNA vaccine, CDC changes.
	They thought, okay, well, and it was all clearly to me staged.
	You had CDC was going to refuse to go along with the orders of an elected president and is uh nominated uh and affirmed by an other elected official secretary in terms of enforcing it.
	You there was they were building up to it, trying to so doubt with Trump himself, the uh attacking sort of any other challenges.
	So they were just looking for an opportunity, and they thought they had one.
	They really didn't, because politically the country is behind what Robert Kennedy's doing.
	That's a big reason why the Republicans are in the House, Republicans are in the Senate, and uh a Republican is in the White House.
	So the uh was the sort of Maha portion of the MAGA movement.
	And the it was always popular within MAGA to just added additional voting constituencies to it.
	So you but it's no surprise that they were always going to go after him, they're gonna continue to go after him.
	There's no good grounds for it.
	There's never been any good grounds for it, but that won't change who and what they're about.
	I I just want to, you know, I'm gonna bring it back to the beginning again because we kind of Elizabeth Warren, uh, baseball can't listen to our denying people vaccines.
	I'm not gonna recommend a product for which there's no clinical data for that indication, which is that what I should be doing.
	What you should be doing is honoring your promise that you made when you were looking to get confirmed in this job.
	She's going like this.
	That you would not take away vaccines from anyone who wanted them.
	You just changed the classification of the COVID vaccine.
	I'm not taking them away from people, Senator.
	It takes it away if you can't get it from your pharmacy.
	Okay, Robert, my understanding that first of all, I've asked the question, nobody's ever gonna answer me.
	Who can't get a vaccine that they want?
	What Elizabeth Warren's argument and all the other pharma who was up there, I didn't get to the uh uh the RFK calling her out on her pharma stuff, is that it won't be covered by insurance, so people won't be able to get it for free uh and have it covered by their insurance.
	That's that's their argument, correct?
	That they might have to pay for this shot uh if it's not it was creating a fake scare.
	I mean, the entire goal along, this is where the there are a range of people within the Maha movement who were frustrated that Kennedy didn't even move, didn't move even quicker.
	Yeah, uh, and explain that the the way this has to go is you need to have the the evidentiary and empirical basis established for it first and foremost.
	And the and that needed to go through the study process, there were study review process, the advisory committee process, all those components.
	And he once he got that established, then he had the foundation do what needed to always be done, uh, which was simply say it's no longer being recommended.
	I mean, the FDA was always supposed to be just in the marketing business, the labeling business.
	They were never supposed to be in the medicine business.
	But you know, the same with USDA.
	They just long mission creep, long went outside of it.
	So it makes no sense at all to say, oh, that he's doing anything to prohibit, prevent, or take anything away from anyone.
	And I long said throughout this process, like uh, for example, uh, the you know, loser senator there from Louisiana, who hopefully won't be in the Senate a year and you know, 18 months from now, when he gets elected out of office, the Bill Cassidy, he he suggested that the the lawsuits that I was co-counsel with Robert Kennedy in were meant to take away the vaccine from people.
	And I longed explained, even there are people within the on that side of the issue.
	I've I've always said I disagree with that.
	And in fact, so did Robert Kennedy.
	He believes in informed consent as the model.
	And as that model, that means at what point it's up to me, the patient, uh me, the customer, me, the individual, to decide what medicines I take and I don't take.
	And he's not going to recommend that you even take them if there isn't good clear medical data and science to back it up.
	And that's it.
	That's all.
	But the what they're pretending is that by no longer recommending it for something that the there in fact isn't support for, somehow takes it off the market.
	Uh, is simply not the case.
	Now, here's what's also true.
	You take it off the prep act, uh, you the you take it off the kids' list.
	They lose immunity.
	That's what they don't want to say, though.
	They don't want to say that that Pfizer might look at the COVID vaccine right now and say, we don't want to take the chances of getting sued into oblivion because we know that in fact this is not a safe or effective vaccine.
	So the the they were terrified of discovery in the Brooke Jackson case.
	So the there the so there's a there is a chance if if the big pharmaceutical companies take it off the market, then that's a that it is the a damnation uh from those companies of an admission that this was never a safe, effective, desirable drug.
	I I should have highlighted the tweet from which that came from uh Chicago One Ray.
	I don't know who it is, but uh he says just a quick reminder for those keeping score.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren screaming at RFK over the vaccine that she wants us to take.
	It's the same vaccine that her and every member of Congress exempted themselves from.
	Can't make this shit up.
	I just had to double check it.
	Congress was in fact exempt uh under the separation of powers, right?
	From it from being compelled to take this jab.
	But it's impossible to to not have terrible things to say about the Elizabeth Warren's of the world.
	And that yes, if they take it off, uh sorry, if it's no longer recommended, taking off the prep act, they might lose immunity.
	They might willfully pull it from the market, then people won't be able to get it even if they want it.
	But that's how toxic this jab, in fact, allegedly was based on all science as of uh as of now.
	Robert, we got uh I want to remember to do it while I see them.
	We got a new member or someone just joined.
	No, Spinner has been here for a while.
	Well, Spinnaker, well, thanks for subscribing again.
	Um, okay, so RFK Jr. had that hearing.
	I think it was phenomenal.
	Uh he he he showed up.
	I mean, there's such a bunch of scoundrels.
	Wyden is a snivelling little snot.
	Um, who's the other one there?
	Uh uh, oh god, Warner.
	Warner's a puke.
	What was I I people are saying Warner was involved in the Russia Gate hoax, but I have to go refresh my memory on that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	All right.
	Well, that was the uh the hearing there.
	Now, that being said, over in Florida, uh the uh Surgeon General Lapato gave a press conference and said, you know, we're not gonna mandate these things anymore.
	He said something during that presser, which I said like is uh is a is a bad formulation of of how to express it where he says, Who am I to tell you what to put in your body?
	Well, I mean, some are gonna say you're the uh this the the surgeon general uh of the state, and that's what you're there for to make recommendations, but not mandates, which is Exactly how everybody knew that he meant it says, okay, I'm not here to tell you what you have to put in your body.
	And so we're not going to do this.
	What is what is uh what did for uh Florida do?
	They they they uh are taking a number of vaccines off the requirements for public schooling.
	And they're yes, correct.
	They're considering taking out the vaccine with the at least many of the vaccines, if not all, but at least you know, the uh all the ones that have been added, they're considering taking off the list as a requirement.
	And and they're considering that there shouldn't be any vaccine mandates, period.
	Uh the uh for anything to get access to schools, to get access to health facilities, you you name it.
	The uh so that's the next step.
	And they asked uh Trump about it.
	Now they're all often these are set up questions.
	They're trying to sow division between Trump and Kennedy and hoping Trump would abandon him.
	And and that there's been efforts of you know from the beginning on that.
	But the and that that's part of what this question is sort of you know to uh there for.
	Uh and Trump said, oh, you know, but you know, some vaccines, but some people took it that he was talking about the COVID vaccine.
	He doesn't appear to be referencing that.
	He just says, you know, there's some vaccines that are really good.
	The and and so maybe you have to mandate them.
	That's like, okay, well, that I don't the for school children.
	So the I didn't take much out of that one way or the other.
	Uh so I thought more was made of it than was necessarily in the statement given the context.
	But the broader context is that's the what is going up before the Supreme Court is another opportunity for the Supreme Court to make clear whether or not states have to offer religious exceptions and accommodations for vaccine mandates, because multiple states now are trying to get rid of that religious accommodation.
	Uh okay, and so this was one of the um we I had we had never received more thanks from the community than when you put out the template of the religious exemption in the context of COVID.
	There is there's a religious exemption that even I might start to contemplate invoking even in Florida.
	People don't appreciate this.
	Like uh Canada says, oh no, Florida's gonna you know take take vaccines off the mandate schedule.
	Like you idiots in Canada don't even have uh uh mandated vaccines.
	Uh Ontario and New Brunswick have them for school for some things, but Canada doesn't have vaccine mandates and they're dumping on Florida for taking off.
	My kids weren't even up to speed when we got down here from Canada.
	Um what was so I mean I gotta ask like what is the you have a religious exemption that states don't recognize.
	Is that governed by that's governed by what the constitution, federal law or by state law?
	Well, the well, the it would it can be both, but it what is going up before the supreme court is federal law, and it's does a state have to recognize a religious accommodation or religious exemption or a right to a religious objection to a vaccine mandate.
	In other words, when they're when the when you are forcing someone to say, well, if you want to be part of the public, get the benefit of the public schooling system, then you uh have to behave in a way that is exactly opposed to your religion.
	Isn't that the state violating your First Amendment rights?
	To me, it is and but the Supreme Court has refused to take this up.
	Now it didn't used to be an issue because there were very few states that ever even tried this.
	But now in the COVID context, showing you how status they are.
	You know, Maine has done it, I think Connecticut has done it, New York has done it, California has done it at different levels.
	And so all of a sudden, that the if you want to participate, you know, if your kid wants to go to public schools or maybe needs to go to public schools, or in some cases legally obligated to go to the public schools, the means to afford another form of schooling that is satisfactory to them to the state, then you you have to subject your kid to a medical experimentation.
	And more and more people are wondering about that.
	And and that's the other thing that they all know is coming down the pipe, which is why they were pushing so early so eagerly right now to push Kennedy out, is the autism report is coming.
	And the autism report, uh, as Dr. Robert Malone was talking about, relates to a study I read many years ago uh that originated in trying to figure out uh the autism in Cuba.
	And now, I mean what Dr. Malone is talking about is speculative, so we don't know, but I it would not surprise me at all if vaccines Or something connected to vaccines is identified as part of the cause for the spike in the uh in autism.
	And that it also may relate people like Tylenol, how could Tylenol relate?
	Well, someone was trying to figure out why Cuba had that also does a whole bunch of vaccinations, does not uh have this big autism spike that we have in the US.
	And one per and one doctor noted that in Cuba, they think it's good for the kid after the baby when they're or you know, up till two, three years old when they're given a vaccine.
	They think it's good if they have a temperature, if they if they're if they feel pain and so forth, they see that as a sign, oh, it's working.
	Whereas in the US, for uh apparently beginning in the 70s, this changed in the US where they just started giving out Tylenol like it was candy, and and to it to avoid a temperature, to avoid anything, to avoid I I guess that's the explanation.
	I it's it's I've it's never been fully developed how that all happened.
	But it's that he saw a connection that that was the biggest difference between how we did it and they did it, and so there's there's been conflicting studies out there, but there are studies that suggest there is an issue.
	There are studies that suggest it's not an issue.
	But so that that's what the they're worried about what Kennedy's about to come down with.
	Uh, also next, right after the MRNA vaccines, they're worried about what is he going to I let the world know uh autism and other issues are caused by, and there's a lot of people with a lot of money would like the world not to know what that is.
	And just for those who may not be it's an AI overview, so it's worth what it's worth, but it's the aggregator.
	No official this is in Cuba.
	No official autism prevalence rates for Cuba because of national survey has not been conducted.
	While one source mentions an incidence of two to four per 10,000, it notes lack of reliable national data.
	All right.
	So take that for what it's worth because uh probably a communist regime doesn't want to admit uh you know bad things, but we know what the rates are in America.
	Uh one in 31.
	So the i i I wouldn't try it's true.
	I don't know how you rely on the data from Cuba where the government's going to have uh a strong incentive, I would presume to minimize the nefarious acts or the nefarious consequences of government policy.
	Uh, but if it's one in 10,000 or two in 10,000, that is wildly less statistically prevalent than in America, where it's almost as common as transgenderism in in in California.
	Um, and so it is interesting.
	I mean, we'll see where that was I was breaking down the Dr. Mike video, the Dr. Mike, who my kid still likes to watch, but um, who was attacking RFK Jr.
	And he says, look, the sale of organic foods charts the rate the increase in autism.
	And so there, you know, correlation doesn't equal causation, which is the dumbest argument ever.
	On the one hand, that was only tracking sales of um organic foods, not consumption of organic foods.
	And second of all, maybe there's something in organic foods, who knows?
	But uh, is there something well the other problem is that what gets labeled organic?
	They allow all this corporate crap to get labeled organic that really isn't what people think of when they think of organic.
	That might be that might be laden with heavy metal types glycophil glycophase, whatever the hell it's called, that might actually cause autism.
	So I when is that report on the autism supposed to drop?
	Uh it's it's uh within a month or so.
	Oh, that's gonna be that and that that entire study is gonna have been done under RFK Jr.'s uh rule.
	Okay, so people are gonna write that off as uh then that explain it explains the the radical push to call them a quack, unscientific uh danger to children uh in the in the lead up to that.
	Okay, so that is RFK Jr.
	That's Florida.
	Um I can't think of a segue.
	What do we move on to next?
	Well, I mean, in terms of sort of craziness, I was not a big fan of uh the Department of Justice and partially inspired by Melania Trump floating a ban, a like a red flag type law ban on uh people owning the means of self-defense just if they're identified as trans.
	This trans gun ban, not a fan.
	Well, so uh it to me it read like the uh executive order outlawing the burning of the flag.
	And when when I went into like how they're fleshing it out, it does seem like they're already gonna go towards the mental deficiency criteria under the law, which I guess maybe some people don't know exists that if you're declared adjudicated mentally um the word was deficient, no, mentally a mental defect.
	I think it was something politically incorrect, Then you could be disqualified from owning a gun.
	Then the only question is is it going to be deemed uh, you know, is their proposal that anyone who is identified as or diagnosed as gender dysphoric is therefore mentally deficient under the law.
	What what is what is the um what is the current law for those who may not know as to who could be precluded from owning a firearm?
	It's convicted felons, uh, people with charged with charged with or or convicted of violent crimes, and people who are deemed to be mentally unfit requires a doctor's diagnosis.
	Oh, well, yeah, beyond that, it requires basically institutionalization, usually.
	So the uh in other words, you know you you're in an insane asylum.
	You can't call up and get a gun.
	That that's basically what that was, at least it originally intended to mean.
	The I've never been in favor of that part of the law, and I've never thought of comply to the second amendment.
	So the uh the and that and I get the temptation.
	Now I get you know, Timpull and others' perspective is oh, you know, the you know, Trump is trolling the left into to uh supporting the second amendment uh and and into the and in the same time Trump is highlighting for the public uh the that when they hear about shootings, they should think about trans and thus think about the left, not think about the right.
	So from a political affiliation or association perspective.
	Because usually anytime one of these mass shootings took place, the it was it was the guns are the problem and the rights the problem in the in sort of the media narrative.
	So you can I can understand where uh you know Trump's coming from politically, but legally, no, no, no, no, no, no, thank you.
	That any time you start going down this path of taking away somebody's right.
	I mean, the the second amendment says the people, it's the right of the people.
	Clearly, trans people or people, what everyone likes dislikes about them.
	The they're part of the people under the second amendment, and the people, their right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
	Uh not because it's fashionable at the moment.
	And so not a fan, and I hope we shoot down pun intended, this red flag, this uh red flag trans band.
	Well, I I think most people don't actually appreciate what's already on the firearm for in here.
	This is the application for federal firearms, and it's mental defective is the word.
	Have you ever been uh I didn't realize there are so many flipping questions on this?
	Have you ever been denied a federal firearms license?
	Uh have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective?
	It's not a bad, or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
	So it's basically institutionalisation.
	The only time you'd be adjudicated mentally ill is that I guess you could be acquitted.
	You could be acquitted by reason of insanity, then you've been uh then you'd be considered insane, can't get a gun either.
	The you know, and I get that logic that the identifying every person going down the path of expanding that, saying, let's think about anyone we want to think of as crazy if the government also who gets the power.
	It's amazing the number of people who get excited about how power can be used without thinking about whether we want to give the state that power to begin with just because we might have political control over the state at the moment.
	That that's you know, I don't want to give the state the power to decide.
	Well, we're gonna decide that if you oppose vaccines, you're crazy.
	And that means you can't defend yourself either and no more gun rights, because that this is as slippery a slope as it gets uh when it comes to constitutional liberty.
	Well, and for those, I mean, I appreciate people were going with the angle of the the mental um illness argument.
	Okay, they they're so they're diagnosed or they are clinically gender dysphoric.
	Well, then the question is like, what mental illnesses are you gonna want to use as a pretext to uh prevent someone from owning a firearm?
	OCD, generalized anxiety, and then I, you know, some others were saying, or uh my my angle was okay, well, forget the trans, the trans aspect of it.
	Uh I would say that the people who commit these shootings are probably more likely on SSRIs or some form of psychotropic medication.
	Then if the government says, well, okay, fine, that'll be your mental defect deficiency to preclude you from owning a firearm, and then woe and behold, uh, there are a lot of people who are taking SSRIs that if you push this to where it logically leads, would lead a lot of people to be very, very pissed off about it.
	And it's not because you know, someone has whatever mental delusions they have does not make them a danger.
	I think what you know, the the the clinching factor here, RFK brought it up, it's not the transgenderism, it's not the guns, it's the psychotropic medications that are being wildly over uh over uh what is the word, overprescribed that eliminates that trigger that people had or the the prevention that people had and you know pushes them to do it.
	All right, so I I didn't like it either.
	I think it's stupid, uh whether or not it's whether or not it's a three, four D level troll to get the left to start defending gun rights.
	I for those who say that, you you don't do trolls that compromise your own integrity.
	That's not how it works.
	You You make certain strategic mistakes, uh, like maybe the one with Jerome Powell, where Trump said, Oh, the building costs three and a half billion dollars you're over.
	It's like, oh no, actually, that was two buildings.
	Well, that's a type of mistake that proves the point.
	Not this.
	Okay.
	What else?
	Well, speaking of Trump and speaking of the courts, Robert, uh, what happened this week?
	Uh, bo, not Bosburg, it wasn't Bosburg, although I think we're gonna get to him in a second.
	Judge Breyer got his revenge, in which he declared, okay.
	I can steal man both sides of this.
	It's the Kame, what is it?
	Uh the Comatus.
	Possibilitatus.
	Posticometal.
	I'll never remember it.
	Uh it it's the I well, from what I understand, if I can analogize it, it's sort of like the emergencies act where if the feds invoke it, they can bring in the National Guard to assist or take over where local law enforcement has been unable to enforce the law.
	Kame patata.
	I'm gonna say come patatus and never knows over uh Kuma Patada.
	Uh Trump did it.
	Breyer initially issued something of a TRO that he uh suspended himself.
	It said Trump can't do this.
	Turn back over the control of the National Guard to the state.
	Uh what's his face?
	Not uh Comey.
	Newsom didn't ask for it, and he issued a TRO that he suspended, but now he's adjudicated on the merits and said uh this was unlawful, not in conformity with the essence of the law, the raison d'être of the law.
	Governor didn't ask for it formally, and this is basically federalization of of state law enforcement uh under the pretext of an emergency when they were able to deal with it at the state level.
	I can sort of understand the argument.
	And if we get into the situation where you invoke this emergencies act every time just to federalize law enforcement, uh state law enforcement, I can see it being abused on the substance, but I don't understand the law well enough to engage in a debate over it uh uh despite having been asked.
	And I could sort of understand both sides.
	What is the what is your interpretation of the proper application of this law that Trump invoked to do what he did, which a judge now said was unlawful?
	Is that I mean the Trump particularly in this context, so what he did in LA was simply invoked the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement, which is a a uh power given directly to him.
	And there's a formality in which you reach out to the governor and confirm it.
	And the judge was trying to pretend that you had to get the governor's consent, permission, agreement.
	Well, that makes no sense.
	The uh they they we were they were never subjecting the the federal government's power.
	This is the federal government's deciding this power.
	They were never subjecting that power to the whim of a state governor.
	That that's that's the whole kind of the whole point is that you have this power independent of the governor.
	The governor's just keep kept in the chain of communication because he's part of the chain of command legally, but he is beneath the president in that capacity.
	So the uh while still within it.
	So the uh but Breyer held his like little trial, so he got enjoined from you know, his he got overturned, but the they didn't completely dismiss it because they let these cases keep lingering.
	This was because of the big mistake that Roberts made with Barrett and not shutting the door completely in a couple of the cases they had, as we said at the time back in May and June.
	And that now we're seeing, you know, the what one judge and one appeals court ordered that he has to send foreign aid money to certain people.
	You know, uh another another court said that he has to put the federal trade commission, he has to put a different person back in.
	Biden's nominee has to be back in and in control.
	The a federal judge is considering forcing him to keep a crook at the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve governor, uh that you were referencing earlier.
	So I mean, uh, and then more judges said you can't deport people, you can't uh send people out.
	Uh, you can't, you know, so the they keep interrupting and interfering again and again and again and again.
	Now all that being said, that doesn't mean I think it's a great idea legally or politically to just send the National Guard anywhere without any if you with if you if locally they're politically objecting that uh DC is one thing.
	I don't think DC should should win its suit, but it's bringing suit because it's Trump and because it's the DC courts.
	Well, and just it's just people understand your uh distinction between DC and every other city is that DC was already it shouldn't be its own district to begin with.
	It's federal to begin with.
	So it's not like he's usurping or overriding state state powers.
	In Chicago, it's different.
	You know, there's no, it's just another weekend in Chicago.
	It's not like violent uh insurrectionist protests where people flying Mexican flags are burning cop cars, and Gavin is either unwilling or unable to do anything.
	So the distinction between DC and every other state for law and order is a legal, uh is a legal basis one where it's based on federal versus uh state rights, then it's the question of whether or not it's you know, you're legitimately invoking the Hakuna Matada Act or using it as a pretext to just uh impose federal will in the states.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, oh exactly, you nailed it.
	And now, so the my concern, I think, from a political perspective is if you send the National Guard in for something other than what he did in California.
	I think this judge's ruling will be overturned.
	I think DC will lose their challenge ultimately, it just may not happen depending on the draw because of the nature of the judges there.
	But I think uh, but it'd be different if he sent him in to say for the purpose of policing the local community, because there's one the the the uh talk about sending him to Chicago for to help uh immigration enforced immigration laws, have at it.
	That's clearly within his prerogative.
	But if he sends them in there to police local law, police, you know, drug enforcement, dealing with gangs, then you the line you know that those lines start to get blurry.
	We're starting to re-federalize the police all over again.
	Uh the and I and if they politically it can set up badly in a hundred different ways.
	I don't know how you would do that without the cooperation of the local police and others, anyway.
	So I'm not sure.
	And I here's what we definitely couldn't do as our transition in the next topic that blew up this weekend, is uh because Vice President Vance made some uh affirmative statements to uh uh some folks that some folks took I I didn't take it the way Senator Paul took it, but the but basically it's I mean, we we can't send the National Guard in like we're sending him into Venezuela and just start blowing people up.
	You know, that would definitely not be legal here in the US.
	Whether what we did in Venezuela is legal is yet to be determined.
	Uh Robert, let me say ask you one thing here.
	Uh what do you think of this?
	I I know that I'm I don't love it, but I I you know signing an executive order rebrand the defense department of the department of war.
	Um, I'm only for I've always been for that because that's who they are.
	That's why I went call our bioweapons bioweapons.
	Don't say it's biological defense, biological security, the department of defense.
	We're not the department of defense, the department of war.
	So it's Trump making it an honest reflection of what it is.
	That's that's the war department.
	And the and people should look at it in that way.
	So I I'm glad we're getting honesty in the advertising.
	You know what?
	I had never I had not yet thought of it that way, and uh, I'm sold, probably because I want it to be sold in the first place.
	Uh yeah, call it what it is.
	Okay, so what did what did JD Vance say?
	I think I might have missed what he said that was misinterpreted, or at least interpreted by so the uh uh so the uh yeah uh hopefully this is well, uh depending on your policy perspective, I suppose.
	So the for those unaware, we've been building up military assets along the coastline of Venezuela, uh, including you know, sending uh what appear to be troops and other people to to Puerto Rico.
	There were some that uh thought this might be an effort to overthrow the government of Venezuela and uh install a different government there uh on a range of pretext.
	The uh but in this capacity, what happened is a uh a boat was uh leaving.
	Uh what is this?
	Oh that's funny.
	Never mind.
	I'm still here, right?
	Yeah, you're still there, you're still here.
	There, there has been it's been glitching a little bit on Rumble, but only in terms of the numbers that everyone has been able to view.
	This is the where they blew up the boat.
	Where is it?
	How do I just uh yes?
	Well, hold on, we gotta we gotta watch it.
	Did I just shut it down?
	No, it's right here.
	Okay.
	Uh there's some music there that I've I've just uh so the the question is uh hold on, get this out of here.
	Okay, that's so this is purportedly a uh drug smuggling boat with TDA gang members on it.
	That's quite accurate um firing right there, and it goes down.
	People are saying, Oh, is this what we want now?
	Extrajudicial killing of gang members.
	How do you know they are who they are?
	They just blew some fishermen up and called them TDA terrorists.
	Uh yeah, okay.
	What's your what's your take and and you were with this?
	You know, the uh so what the uh so it was the so Senator Grassley asked about it.
	President Trump sent a letter that was kind of more vague, so it's saying I'm keeping Congress uh in terms of what you know his basis was that uh legally uh just said that we know consistent with the war powers resolution act uh that um you know letting you know that that we had people that were identified as part of a foreign terror organization, uh, which is what they've designated uh TDA as being.
	So not just a matter of uh drug cartel operation, but they've it's kind of you know, they're calling it narco-terrorism in the Trump administration, and that pursuant to it, they had identified people that were on the boat uh that were uh identified as TDA members trying to transport uh drugs to that could endanger American lives.
	And so that uh so that's what he told Senator Grassley, uh Secretary Rubio.
	There's some articles out there that do correctly detail uh Rubio's Cuban style obsession uh with uh Venezuela, uh that uh he's been obsessed with.
	He's as obsessed with Venezuela as say uh Lindsay Grit Lady Lindsey Graham is with Ukraine.
	Um the uh I think Paul Dans put it well, who's challenging Lady Lindsay there in South Carolina.
	Uh he said, you know, the Lady Lindsay's had a long time love affair with a with the uh uh it's just with a foreign country.
	Uh, but the uh rather than the more traditional kind.
	So but the and in that context, uh Vice President Vance took to social media and said that he believes a very good use of the military.
	He could imagine few better uses of the military than taking out uh drug cartels that are flooding America with dangerous drugs.
	Uh and I think it was Brian Krasenstein is one of those, one of those, you know, you know the Krasenstein brothers.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, they're they're kind of weird looking.
	They are they're they're weird, and I say weird in every respect in the actual sense of weird, but it's I think also stupid, because I I won't forgive him for their 56 8647 shit and uh some other things that they've done.
	But yes.
	So one of them responded to Vice President Vance with Oh, you're you're you're that you're you're justifying murder.
	And Vance just responded to him uh with some uh artful phrases, said, I don't give a SHIT wait uh about you, about your opinion, uh constantly.
	The or what you think of it, I think is what he said.
	And that was somehow misconstrued as Vance saying he doesn't care about whether or not we're murdering people.
	Uh he he's saying that obviously he's saying that uh the SHIT in question is Mr. Krasenstein himself.
	So the uh uh but uh so that that's how it kind of became an issue.
	Senator Paul responded.
	Yeah, actually I hadn't seen it because I muted the Krasensteins on my channel on my on my Twitter feed.
	Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest best use of our military.
	Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.
	I don't give a shit what you call it.
	But what I love is uh what due process do you expect to get with Crescent missed is the focus uh for for Mr. Crash was on the you no, no, not the label.
	You're saying uh I don't I don't care anything.
	The the source of the opinion is such without credibility as to not be concerned with the opinion itself.
	The uh is uh the uh I I I guess we have to shakespear it for uh Krasenstein there, so he can uh you know uh uh understand it in some language and and words that he can can hear and process.
	I love it.
	I love Jack Bozo here.
	Hold on.
	This was Pozo's response.
	This is the giga shatter.
	All right, sorry, Robert, yes.
	But all that being said, I do understand where Senator Paul is coming from, which is the is he goes, do we really want to go into this business?
	Now the the libertarian wing of the Republican Party has long been concerned with has has been skeptical of the drug war in general, the war on drugs in general, and I share their skepticism just from studying it for a long time and seeing that uh the only countries in the modern era, the last century plus that have successfully uh completely suppressed drugs or alcohol are totalitarian countries or countries that choose totalitarian tactics.
	I'm not willing to trade my liberty for that, personally.
	Uh uh I don't think our founders would have either.
	So the that so for that reason, in the name of the war on terror, we got the surveillance state and endless wars.
	Are we gonna get the same thing in the now endless war on the on drugs?
	That it it does look to me like now, so that so that that's that that's the loose policy concern that uh that some of us would have about this.
	But putting that aside, I think it will be popular because people people the now the issue is to how do you determine whether that person is in fact the person you're saying they are, that's part one, and then part two is even if they are, what gives you the legal right to blow them up?
	Well, I if if we get to the second one, I'll I'll make a very strong argument for self-defense because these people literally are killing you know a hundred thousand Americans a year with with the fentanyl trade.
	The question is, how do you know?
	Like and this is where you always go back to the bad situations where a due process, they're not citizens, they are if they are who they say they are, they're literally terrorist gang members of a foreign country.
	You're not talking about due process in the constitutional sense.
	You are when you're talking about uh I was gonna say Osama, but I meant Obama, uh drone bombing an American citizen in a foreign country, their due process enters the realm.
	Here, the question is only were they properly identified as and is it definitive that they are engaged in drug smuggling?
	And then the question is if they are, what do you what else are you supposed to do?
	Well, we can't we can't get them arrested because their local government is doing jack squat if not actually working with them.
	And so we're supposed to sit here and try to prevent the flow of fentanyl that's killing 100,000 people a year instead of making drug dealers uh afraid of spontaneous combustion in a foreign country where their own government won't do it because they can't.
	So I if you get past the first step, I I'm okay with the second.
	Just the first the question is how do you know?
	And can you trust a government to say, yeah, that boat wasn't 11 fishermen, it was TDA drug members.
	Yeah, so that that's definitely a concern.
	I mean, I think Trump intended this to be really drastic and dramatic, uh, believing that it would send a message to basically not use uh sea routes and maritime routes as a way of uh smuggling in drugs into the country.
	And we have had success at how you uh we can incentivize the mechanism by which uh drugs are smuggled into the country.
	I it's very unlikely we can succeed at completely suppressing drugs presence in the country.
	And this has always been my disagreement on the war on drugs, but putting that policy outcome issue aside.
	I think Trump wanted this to seem as dramatic as possible.
	They may have tons of intel and information as to to substantiate their uh evidentiary basis for it.
	The and they don't want to disclose it to protect methods, uh, or more consequently, he may not want to do disclose it because he wants the what he the drug world to be shocked and say, okay, so now Trump's gonna start blowing us up wherever we're at.
	And he's trying to escalate risk in the belief that that will reduce supply, in the belief that that will in turn reduce abuse and abuse.
	Uh uh again, I remain skeptical if that's achievable, but let's putting that aside, the legality, so the even so let's assume for the moment they have that evidence that shows these people are exactly who they said they were.
	The whether it fits self-defense is a separate matter.
	And then it's also an unusual situation where if it can be considered war, then it has to fit within something Congress has authorized.
	So the because the constitution delegates the war power to the declaration of war to Congress, not to the president.
	So the uh and that's why I think the letter to Senator Grassley was so vague.
	Now, I can you you can probably assure that this will be one of the uh that this will be used against them down the road if Democrats win the House and the Senate, this will be kind of this kind of thing because of its its high profile and uh and uh unusual public nature.
	How unusual it is is you know, the move, you know, this idea as a script has been there since you know uh Clancy's the Patriot games, you know, they it uh but my concern would be that we end up in some sort of patriot games type situation from a policy perspective, depending on how this is being managed.
	But the self-defense, I always consider it this way.
	No government has should have any greater power of self-defense than an individual, or put another way, no individual should have any lesser power right of self-defense than the government.
	And so here would be an example.
	Could let let's say you know, because to your point that that somebody bringing drugs into the country in the current condition the uh the country is in in terms of drug user issues, uh could be can be considered a risk of serious bodily harm or death.
	So could let's say uh you knew someone that was giving drugs to your child, and that the was putting them at risk of death.
	Could you just go down the street and shoot them in the head?
	You might you might uh what's the word jury nullification or not during nullification?
	Um I mean, you might be all for it as a matter of policy.
	The uh that yeah, you might cheer into the movie theater.
	The I I thought they should put JD Vance on the on you know, Death Wish Six, you know, and have JD Vance as the as the uh you know with some glasses on or something.
	If you for those that don't know the Death Wish movies, those are great.
	Bruce Willis briefly read actually he was decent as one.
	But the uh I think from policy perspective, there's a lot of people that will cheer that on.
	Uh the uh and understandably so.
	And I think some people were forgetting that Vance himself was experienced the trauma of this uh personally and in his own life with the the issues that his mother faced.
	So that's and he's seen that part of Appalachia that I'm from this, you know, the southern part, he's from the northern part or the north central part of it, no how Kentucky borderline, uh, really suffered from the drug epidemic.
	So I get where his mindset is uh and and the rest.
	The but yeah, I've always been curious from a certain moral standpoint.
	I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think American courts would recognize it likely as self-defense.
	They would say it doesn't have the necessity and proportionality is my guess.
	Because that was the criticism here within the international legal community.
	Now, there's Trump doesn't have many friends in that community, so you have to take it with a grain of salt.
	But putting that aside, uh the uh from the same people on the libertarian side, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, they're gonna be unhappy with this.
	And the reason they're gonna be unhappy with this um is for the same reason they're unhappy when J.D. Vance, I mean, I'm sorry, when Barack Obama did it.
	So before J.D. Vance's commented, you know, when Barack Obama the uh drone bombed a U.S. citizen, uh, on the grounds that the anti the anti-terror authorization of the uh no after 9-11, uh, which said you can go after anything Al Qaeda or 9-11 connected, which extended basically to waging war throughout the whole Middle East and our war on terror.
	And it goes like if if Rand Paul thought that was wrong, he's not gonna think this is right.
	So the I as a matter of policy is a matter of his understanding of the constitution.
	But the uh the real key to me is it's generally recognized that as commander-in-chief, President Trump has the right of self-defense.
	The and so in that uh the and the the self-defense of the country.
	Now the one issue is imminents, uh, you know, the how necessary was this, how imminent was it, how proportional was it?
	Now, to the point of could they arrest them, because they're in international waters, we could.
	The uh the so the the typically the Coast Guard handles all of this uh drug intradiction uh on the US coastline, and and even and as well in international waters, and they'll sometimes work with the Navy and and other military, but more limited military role.
	And that they, you know, the what is they'll put their light on them, try to detain the boat, uh, to the try to board the boat, try to search the boat, try to and then arrest people and arrest the the boat as needed.
	The uh it's it's you there's there's no law enforcement authority in the US for just like the Coast Guard deciding, oh, we're pretty sure those are bad guys, let's blow them up, unless they knew something that unique, like they have a bunch of bomb, they have a bomb on there or something else.
	I don't think just drugs themselves would justify that use of force in the US.
	So then it becomes, is it justified because it's an international waters?
	Is it justified because of some set of facts Trump knows that we don't?
	But I I think it would be a difficult case to win, uh, even though people might be sympathetic with it morally, but using the analogy of shooting the drug dealer trying to provide drugs that might kill your kid.
	Morally, I think people would be very sympathetic with it.
	Legally, I think it would be a tough self-defense case to sell with an existing law because it puts such an effort focused on imminent risk, on necessity, on proportionality, and so forth.
	Yeah, it was jury nullification, was the term I was looking for, just make sure I had it right.
	Uh, but people I I noticed one comment that rightly observed the boats got four outboard engines, which is not typical of a fishing boat, unless you're there's those feed boats.
	Yeah, you're trolling for Marvel.
	Yeah, they're usually drug boats.
	Okay.
	But but it's still it's like it was like uh I was like, there are people who are eagerly celebrated, and it was like, whoa, there's a lot of risk here that I hope has been thought through at the White House.
	Yeah, the the potential implication, Robert, that you're getting at that you've uh skirting around is impeachment for high for other high crimes for extrajudicial killings outside of a war.
	It's a U.S. war crime uh if the it doesn't meet those standards we just talked about.
	Okay.
	Uh I'll say interesting on that one.
	Uh all right.
	Now hold on.
	What else did we have up here?
	Oh, wait, wait, wait.
	The other aspect of that that sort of went crazy.
	Well, we got a couple of different we get two different roads we can take right off the same path as a transition.
	Uh, one is the what the the issue that blew up about whether people were lobbying for India and then how that led to people libeling a bunch of people, including yours truly.
	Okay.
	And on the other hand, hey, another prediction of ours came true.
	Uh speaking of foreign corruption, remember that that uh Russia Gate 2.0, uh Lauren Chen, uh Tennessee member?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, hold on.
	Before we get to that, let me let me I realize I'm I'm well behind on all of the chats in the house here.
	We got Rumble Rants, old man Toby says, Could Trump declare war on these countries, then allow that allow the trafficking of the drugs, uh, which I would call chemical weapons.
	We just discussed that.
	Super buff shaft, probably the best name out there.
	Love and respect.
	I begged you guys to interview John Poolitz, Joe Van Pulitzer, to expose the truth about the Arizona audit.
	They need help.
	Please go over.
	Let me screenshot this.
	Give send go, save the evidence 2020.
	Eric Boyum says rumble under attack from many different places and countries.
	Yeah, I noticed that we were at one viewer for a while, but it doesn't make a difference.
	We everyone's here.
	She also bought fake social security cards as an illegal teenager.
	She's a repeat criminal.
	That is going back to the original story.
	Uh, there were a couple of chats over on CommTube that yeah, I I I DM's someone because I didn't I missed what happened with uh the India thing.
	I just know that a bunch of people were posting seemingly identical comments uh in short order.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	Trump's tariffs didn't bring back jobs, manufacturing is down, inflation is up, and the economy's tanking.
	The wealthy thrive, but what about the rest of us struggling daily asks all uh atheist miracle?
	Uh I'm not do we agree with the premise of that uh super chat.
	Uh HEP B is mostly spread by feces, says David De Hart.
	Maybe that's why the bald black leather chains guy is obsessed with it.
	And then I can't bring this up, I've screenshot of them.
	If Kennedy wants to remove chemicals from our food supply because we know they're harmful, why doesn't he remove the COVID jab since they're harmful?
	Take it if you want it, I guess is the answer.
	Um, and if you want to he's removed all the recommendations, he's done what he was smart and what it was within his evidentiary and legal basis within his informed consent model.
	That you know, again, Kennedy's models have been the same all along.
	It should be your right to decide.
	He's not here to take things away from you.
	He's here to empower you, not uh restrict you.
	Um yeah, that was it was uh, but also you want you want uh not lithium.
	What's the stuff?
	Fluoride, you can still get it.
	They just should take it out of the water.
	Uh Robert, what so I'm gonna pull up the the tweets.
	Maybe I can't.
	The scandal, I missed it.
	I only I recognized a few names on it on the on the accusation thread, that a bunch of people, seemingly some simultaneously-ish within short order, were all putting out a tweet that was in some cases verbatim to what someone else was putting out, saying, Why are we uh why are we making enemies of India?
	Whatever.
	I'll I'll get up the tweet in a second.
	And then uh accusations of them being paid by the Indian government to promote pro-India propaganda.
	It was disclosed, confirmed, and then they became uh public enemy number one for a brief point in time until something else happened on the internet.
	What is an idea?
	Someone asking personally, like just I because I missed the scandal.
	What is the accusation?
	Either that they don't have control over their accounts, that they're getting paid, because I don't know, people simultaneously posting the same message.
	I've seen how it works where people say, Hey man, could you uh oh Barnes is coming back in a second?
	Uh, where they say, could you uh tweet this out and make it your own?
	I'm like, no, thank you.
	Uh which it might have been something like that where they all do it.
	I don't understand how people are so stupid that they actually post identical messages or not appreciate if they're cutting pasting, so is somebody else.
	Uh what happened?
	So, well, it's it's not crystal clear what happened, but the in multiple cases they started taking uh different people's accounts and information and saying anybody that says anything pro-India is secretly on their India's payroll, and it was like, what?
	And so that the so there are people there uh clearly was some form of lobbying effort.
	Uh purportedly Jason Miller was you know hired by the Indian government or somebody the there's some uh uh at least public reporting of that.
	Can't confirm it, but that's what's out there.
	The the governments are doing this all the time, you know, all the governments are doing it.
	The and the there was an effort to say India and the US should not be hostile.
	Uh and the and so somebody was putting that up, and then what was happening is what often happens is you if people that agreed with it would uh post as well, and they're getting thrown in to the whole category.
	And then somebody, the uh you know, uh yesterday, even though I think it was Adam Townsend, uh, who you know the I've appeared on his you know podcast when he was doing that back in the day.
	Someone asked him about me, and he seems to suggest that I'm getting on the foreign payroll.
	Well, let me let me know.
	I'm gonna I I've run you know, run a limit on this.
	It's like I get the you know, calling out paid influencer campaigns, but people would just throw everything in.
	Take election wizard, for example.
	He opposes our the current policy that we're doing on India because it it he thinks it just pushing India closer with China and that that's not in our long-term geopolitical interest.
	So he sees a bunch of people posting on India.
	He shares that he has that same opinion because he's had it for a while.
	Election Wizard came down to the 1776 Law Center event, was you know, very gracious with his time, volunteers time for it.
	The uh so those people got to meet him.
	So as soon as I saw people trying to accuse him of being on the payroll, okay.
	It's like, oh, now this seems like everybody who questions Israel is working for Qatar, the everybody who questions the Ukraine war is working for Russia, the you know, it sounds like that kind of anybody who's skeptical of this is working for a foreign government, and then when and with me and other people start getting thrown into it that I know I know election wizard didn't any he said, look, I didn't take any money, I had nothing to do with that, but you know, the but in up, you know, because everybody's blown up about it, I'll just take it down.
	Fine.
	The but the also these people are talking about India policy-wise, on an issue that isn't the issue in in place, and they don't realize that their their hostility to legitimate issues concerning India are is being abused to perpetrate and continue to snag uh stick us in that stupid Ukraine war, and is blowing up geopolitically in front of our faces.
	Robert, I I gotta bring it up just before it disappears.
	You backed Rikeda.
	I can't believe anything else you say.
	First of all, Project H, I I also I'll lump myself with your wisdom.
	We were right about Rakeda, so you can go you know, suck on a lemon, and second of all, you're still here.
	So obviously you get something out of this.
	No, I love I love the haters and the and the trolls on that stuff.
	But it was like this is it was like let me bring this up.
	You gotta be able to dissent, and and and so like there were some of those accounts that made that were true, but other ones that is exactly what uh election wizard believed and has said for a while.
	So what you have is it it's what you've been saying for a while, but uh some of them were verbatim.
	I want to see if I like first of all, I don't like this type of gossipy crap.
	Uh some of them were verbatim cut and paste, and I can't remember Israel has uh India has always welcomed Trump with open arms, hitting India towers won't punish Moscow.
	Now hold on.
	See, like Alexa says the fake news is trying to paint Isia as the enemy.
	Why?
	It was not the cut and paste.
	Um India has always said they were putting they started throwing anybody who said this together.
	And it's like, okay, first of all, some of us have been talking about this for forever.
	So the uh this is not part of any kind of campaign.
	But the other part of it they're ignoring that there's a there's a ton of money being spent on the other side of this aisle.
	The deep state war machine is the biggest influencer on the planet in terms of spending money in the US and outside the US.
	The but it was like some of these people are starting to get loose.
	Like I I think Townsend thought he could just post whatever, and I was like, pow, the the at some point different one, you know, we're gonna we're gonna start taking action on this.
	Um I've I've I've hit my limit.
	I'll take a you know, we'll see how it goes.
	But the but pe the people should be weary of the uh immediately suggesting that anybody who has a dissident opinion on foreign policy is secretly being paid by the foreign government.
	That is the least likely outcome because when the uh political establishment in the US is against that foreign nation or country, ain't nobody taking money from them because they're put right under microscope and driven out in that respect.
	And it almost seemed like this was designed to curtail a legitimate second guessing of the what the Senate is pushing Trump towards, which is this aggressive policy.
	We're not tear we're not taking on H1BB, H11B visa issues.
	We're not taking on telephone centers, all these things that people are complaining about India.
	We're not doing any of that.
	The what we're doing is we're sanctioning them solely for buying Russian oil so that we can continue the Ukraine war.
	And it's like uh I'll I'll point this out, and then all the responses will be India bad, India bad, India bad.
	It's like okay, that the that that's not a thoughtful response.
	That obviously you can't answer the policy whether this policy is a good idea.
	The and what happened last week was as Trump himself put out, Russia and India are now with China.
	BRICS is stronger than ever before.
	Is this smart geopolitics?
	Is this and what's happening is anytime anybody asks any question like that, they're getting shamed into you're not part of the tribe, you're not part of MAGA, and then they elevate and escalate to oh, you're you're getting secretly paid, you're you're fake, you're trying to, you know, all this nonsense.
	And the it's a uh uh it's an unfortunate pattern, and some of the people that are pushing it should be careful, because at some point somebody on that side of the aisle is gonna push back.
	Uh, the you can't be Kyle Sarafan running around saying a bunch of uh uh dumb stuff about a range of people and not end up getting caught and getting into trouble.
	God bless the guy.
	The the one this is what I wanted.
	I finally found one here that's this is uncensored to say I don't know who it is.
	Uh India isn't the issue, forcing them into China's sphere.
	Is we're distancing a key ally, India has always backed Trump.
	Don't let mainstream media mislead us.
	Then you go to this one here by I and on Patriots as the problem pushing them towards China's we're alien.
	That is cut and paste verbatim, uh, you know, making it your own those are like uh fake accounts.
	Now that's what he can and you can spot that without saying the without being all of a sudden anybody who says anything that says uh our policy towards adopting this particular policy towards India is bad, uh must be secretly on the payroll.
	And it's it's getting out of hand.
	It it's become it was it was the go-to.
	Uh it it's it's the old emotional response.
	It's you can't have a geopolitical honest conversation because it's oh, you're for the other side, and no one's for the other side.
	They're usually looking at what is in the best interest of our own selves, and sometimes it's not what the whatever policy is being pursued.
	And my other view is if I said Obama, if if you change your decision about whether something is good policy or good law based on who it is that they're talking about, like this is the you know, the Jay Leno used to do this back in the day, uh, when he was less political, that you'd go out and you'd add you all you had to do is take any policy and just say, hey, this is what Joe Biden did.
	And if you oppose that policy, if Joe Biden did it, but you suddenly support the policy when Donald Trump does it, or vice versa, then your motivation isn't policy, your motivation is uh party.
	Uh hold on, I had to do something.
	Oh, that's okay.
	Before we get on to the uh other side of things, Bolsonaro, I realize I've should be.
	oh, and we one other related aspect to that too, also is the other foreign policy aspect is uh the Lauren Gen news.
	Oh, yeah.
	No, we're gonna get we're gonna get there in a second.
	Let me read a bunch from uh Viva Barnes Law.local.
	That is an excellent meme.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You gotta keep make the permanent copy of that one.
	Rare photo.
	This is from Hard Howard the Duck, Howard the Duke didn't see the tip jar, comments and section.
	I'll get that in a second.
	Passha Moyer.
	Oh, that's a uh question.
	Favorite guilty pleasure movie.
	Mine is Howard uh Howard the Duck.
	I actually really enjoyed Harry the Duck.
	Guilty Pleasure movie.
	I'm trying to think of it.
	Like people like, oh, that's embarrassing that you like that movie.
	Um Porky's Revenge, you know, so it's uh stuff like that.
	I don't know.
	I have to I I only like the uh finest of movies, so I was thinking oh we someone lost their dog.
	Plantner lost their dog.
	Good luck.
	Thanks, but goodbye to a wonderful friend.
	Thanks, Viven Barnes.
	Uh, then we got uh Howard the Duke.
	His efforts to support his presidential library continue.
	Andrew Piscadlo, Charlie Kirk is coming to Utah to do his shtick on campuses, destroying ill-informed college students, even though I'm closer to a postdoc professor, I count.
	I've got a spot.
	We'll see if I can make it.
	I don't think I can support all the constitution, just the parts that I I like.
	Not breaking Charlie's balls, but I'm gonna be the pretty blunt with him.
	Should be fun.
	And then we got uh Bender from sounds like fun, Bun.
	Okay, sounds like fun on a bun.
	Andrew Piscadlo.
	Any requests, what should I bring up?
	Uh okay, I'll think about that one in a second.
	So Lauren Chen Robert, see if she's uh I know she's made a public.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Oh, but people are gonna say uh almost as successful as Viva's UFC picks.
	Yeah, no, no, you're you're much better on that.
	Three weeks in a row, three weeks in a row, profitable.
	I was like, you gotta keep that secret.
	No, no more videos on this.
	We uh gotta keep it on the down low.
	Uh Lauren Chen.
	We all remember this.
	There was an indictment of two foreign alleged Russian assets who were allegedly working with RT to allegedly infiltrate and secretly finance an American-based conservative uh media organization.
	That was Lauren Chen, who's oddly enough Canadian.
	Uh, she's got some other interesting uh uh cultural uh elements to her identity, but doesn't matter.
	Uh the they indicted two foreigners, which at the time I remember you saying this, uh, that nobody could ask.
	There would be no way to ask for nobody could meaningfully contest the lawsuit, asked for disclosures to see what motivated this.
	It was right at the time of the election, give or take, in in proximity to it was used as a hit piece to go after Dave Rubin, Tim Poole, uh Matt Christensen.
	Uh who else was involved in that?
	Uh right wing conservative Lauren Southern, too.
	Lauren Lauren Southern, absolutely, and Lauren Chen.
	Okay.
	Uh, ultimately, it was also used by the Canadian government in parliamentary hearings to go after Russian disinformation.
	And the news of the week, uh, Lauren Chen and tenant media were never charged, though they they were their YouTube channels still down, uh, and they've had their lives and you know, Lauren's uh new mother that makes you know neither here nor there to anybody, but they successfully had their lives ruined, their businesses ruined, and Lauren is trying to get things started again now.
	And they uh moved to the states and they had to move, I guess, back to Canada.
	Their visas were denied.
	Wow.
	Um they did they they dropped the charges against the the Russians in this one.
	So the Southern District of New York acknowledged they they never actually got those two Russians.
	Remember, what we told people is this is Mueller 2.0 that what Muller did is he indicted a bunch of known bunch of Russians, supposed Russians.
	The and because of the in some cases, some of them were never fully identified as actually existing, but the the people that they knew would never come to the US.
	And the they made the now Muller screwed up by indicting a company he thought would never appear.
	The company appeared, exposed how fraudulent the case was, and Mueller had to dismiss it.
	The uh before everything would blow up, but they would get to see all the full discovery.
	That proved how fraudulent Mueller's case was.
	Uh, this was supposedly before he was he was a dementia guy.
	I mean, the believe that they didn't out of the blue, he gets dementia, can't answer questions anymore.
	It's it's so convenient.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I had an informant once.
	Finally, the the judge, I got the judge to order him to appear because I was like the boat, it's like the informant doesn't exist, Judge.
	They've just been laundering bogus surveillance, secret illicit, unlawful surveillance, as uh as and with other secret deals, uh, including they'd actually stolen things, all the kind of things.
	The the they had the mechanic steal stuff, you know that you name it.
	I said, Judge, it's it the informant doesn't exist.
	So on the day the judge ordered him to appear, they said, Judge, we would love to have him appear, but he's fallen off a ladder and he had no one no longer has any memory.
	And even the judge started breaking out laughing.
	You know, the uh at that kind of level of the thing.
	But but what we said was everything about this case screamed out all over again.
	They died a bunch of the only indict people that the indictment was meant to smear.
	It was meant to uh and to intimidate.
	And in and they didn't care what collateral damage they caused, and they'd cause severe collateral damage to Lauren Chen and her husband, uh substantial damage at some level to the reputation.
	Remember how many of these people were accused of being Russian agents in the media right away?
	Because as soon as that uh indictment dropped, that the the as soon as I realized that they they had an indictment, I was like, this is a bogus case.
	This is not this is not a there's a fake case that wasn't even clear to me what law they could have violated in the first place, even if the allegations were true, and now the Southern District of New York acknowledges there's no basis to go forward at all.
	And but they won't put that in writing like they should.
	But you know, credit to Lauren Chen for coming out and saying you know what happened.
	But it was another example of these bogus cases that they utilized, and almost everything Russia connected is garbage.
	It's just lies and fraud.
	I I remember at the time it it compelled uh you know uh statements of protest, statements of dissociation, disassociation from uh Tim Poole, Dave Rubin.
	It's like you guys don't you don't have to apologize for anything, you don't have to the the idea that even if it were financed, even if the operations of tenant media were financed by a uh a rich financier who might have happened to be Russian.
	At the time, our answer was big fucking deal.
	Look at the New York Times.
	You don't apologize for things like that.
	The only question was whether or not Lauren Chen knew that the monies were coming from someone who the content creators might not have approved of and deliberately concealed that information from them.
	But I had on um, I'm not gonna remember his name now, damn it.
	He was with Lauren Chen.
	Uh he left right after, and he's like, No, we we all believe the monies came from, you know, I can't speak for Lauren, but I believe the monies were coming from where we thought the monies were coming from.
	A legit uh oligarch, or not oligarchs, sorry, a legit uh someone with lots of money, I forgot the word is philanthropist who wanted to promote conservative media.
	And then everybody's saying, Oh, Tim Pool had to have known it was uh shell money because nobody would pay them that much for their shows.
	First of all, uh, I think that's wrong.
	Tim Pool uh can command a lot for ad revenue and for licensing content.
	Um, and uh I'm not sure that some of them were getting paid as much as everybody thought they were, Matt Christensen for one.
	But I know the the the apologies that were extorted from a lot of the these in not influences, but these strong voices, uh I thought were was was part and parcel of the project, and they accomplished that uh mission, but Lauren Chen, meaningwhile, I don't think she's got her YouTube channel back.
	I I'll see if she's talking publicly.
	I'd I'd love to have her on because uh I'm you know we we didn't jump on the bandwagon, and I didn't think anything was I didn't think there was a there there then, and at least now we know there was never a there there now.
	Uh exactly.
	Yeah, at least we did get some additional disclosure.
	Those you pointed out, it might have been in the in a little bit of an imperfect presentation.
	Uh but we got some Epstein file stuff coming out.
	Let me get the I want to go find the picture of Marjorie Taylor Green and uh Thomas Massey standing in front of a bunch of people with Epstein and Trump posters behind them.
	Um Robert, maybe you know I don't have any insider baseball um of this.
	There is in indeed a very uh there's a very thick tension between Thomas Massey and Trump, Thomas Massey's base and these you know Trump Maggabase.
	The libertarian wing of Trump's uh coalition is uh mostly unhappy.
	They're there, they you know they like the tax reductions, they like, but they would have preferred budget cuts.
	Uh they like the uh the that they don't like the tariffs and staying involved in foreign wars and everything related to the Epstein files and they don't like surveillance state, they don't like the Palantir stuff.
	So the libertarians are the for the most part have been disappointed uh by Trump in his first uh six months, uh first eight months now, the as we you know past Labor Day.
	So the uh so yes, there's no question there's massey's very representative of That libertarian slash populist, the populist portion of that libertarian wing, just as Rand Paul is in the Senate.
	You can follow Ron Paul for this.
	I always recommend that.
	It's like, you don't have to agree with him, but it's like if people want to and honest, he's as good a weather vein on the libertarian part of the right as anybody is Ron Paul, the legend, the one of the only.
	So the uh, and I you know, still want to end the Fed.
	And the we'll we'll see how that you know that progresses.
	But I think now what is interesting is what do you make of Speaker Mike Johnson floating the idea that the reason why Trump, you know, was uncert about releasing things was because he was the informant who helped bring Epstein down.
	I heard that slip.
	I I don't I don't make much of that, but I am curious as to what you think.
	But Robert, this is the picture that I wanted to show.
	When this is the image, uh, I I and I I do not impugn uh Thomas Massey's intentions, where the guy, whoever says guys gaze for Trump says, I expect this kind of bullshit from Massey.
	I don't I I think I don't impugn Massey's intentions, but when this is the image that they can now grab.
	Uh if I'm Massey, I'm pissed off at the way that went down last week.
	And if I'm Marjorie Taylor Green, she does look a little pissed off in that picture because I think they have a righteous uh uh desire for disclosure.
	It's been co-opted by partisan hacks that are now going to get to make this one big political issue.
	Uh okay, so what's his face?
	Um what was the guy's name?
	Speaker Johnson says Trump was the he'll be back in a second.
	Uh Speaker Johnson said Trump was the informant.
	I'll pull up the clip in a sec.
	I don't take that to be the informant in a uh in like a confidential human source sense.
	He everybody knows that Trump was working with um was assisting the uh victims back in the day, which is what you know, their their lawyer was so uh so many times repeating.
	Trump helped us then, and I don't know why he's not helping us now.
	Um, but yeah, you there's nothing deeper to what Speaker Johnson said or meant by that, or do you think there is?
	I mean, it's a theory.
	Well, I mean, what do you think of it as a theory?
	Uh hold up.
	There we go.
	Uh uh, I I don't know that he was an informant.
	What uh so who's the idea is this Trump didn't want the world to know that he was the one who got them all exposed.
	That that'd be the theory.
	Uh, you know, the taking Johnson's words in that way.
	What do you think of that?
	Well, that's very interesting now that you mention it, because uh, you know, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
	But then when people were accusing Enrique Tario of being an informant and then using it to undermine his credibility and say he works with the feds and therefore, you know, he he's doing it again.
	Now I I would not take that as reputational harm, but I understand how people could, and Trump might fear that.
	I hadn't even thought about that.
	Yeah, well, so I just thought it was that the interesting part.
	I mean, we we we got at least a little more intel information for those that are wondering what Massey meant by saying that the because initially some of the other victims that uh appeared at the press conference said that the they wanted to disclose their own what they understood the list to be of potential other criminal culprits and accomplices.
	And the but the massey said that their concern is that they'll get sued for libel by these powerful people, and that that's what discourages them from identifying them, is they don't want to get steamrolled by these powerful people.
	I can understand that sentiment.
	The uh the if if you know uh I I personally would never identify Bill Clinton or Bill Gates as doing anything wrong.
	The uh, you know, the uh you got to keep that life insurance premium at a reasonable rate.
	The uh, but the uh but what it is is Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green are saying they're going to disclose who the it has been identified in the files that they have received by uh this using the speech and debate clause and doing it from the uh House chambers.
	Now, these days, thanks to the broad expansion of the Westfell Act, unbeknownst uh, or you know, Massey knows this because he's considered legislation to change it, but the it's so broad they don't have to do it from the chambers.
	But if you do it from within the chambers, it is recognized as completely immune without any doubt.
	So apparently that's what we will get some uh Epstein list names from uh Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green on the House floor.
	That'll be some of the more entertaining uh aspects.
	I would be watching that.
	That'll make case they must watch TV for a little bit.
	Well, you call me Cynical, I don't believe that that's their concern.
	Like they're they're talking about that they want to protect victims, they want to protect children, that they're they're coming out and saying we you know, we fear for our lives.
	Look what happened to Virginia Guffrey, but we're basically giving advanced warning to all the people who we are purporting we're so scared of they're gonna sue us into oblivion or kill us.
	We're giving them the heads up that we're gonna this is what we're gonna do.
	We're gonna make our own list.
	I I'm cynical and skeptical as to whether or not uh I don't believe that excuse.
	And at some point, you know, they're afraid of getting sued for defamation, so they're willing to let children and and and victims get sexually abused.
	Um, all right.
	Well, that's that's that's very righteous of you.
	Uh hold on one second.
	What the hell was my my second thought here?
	Darn it.
	I just forgot the thought.
	It'll come back.
	We'll get the names within when they when they're discussed uh by Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green in the house.
	Sorry, you reminded me.
	Okay, I I can steal man why Massey wants his uh whatever the whatever the the the Epstein bill to go through and the whatever that procedure is to get it to go through.
	I think it will to petition to discharge discharge.
	It looks like the petition.
	We'll see what the speaker does, but they should stop objecting to this.
	Just let the intel and information come out.
	You know, every time Trump does this, this is a hoax thing.
	He just digs himself deeper.
	Well, but that I'm convinced he's doing it on purpose now because he's like, everybody keeps talking about this.
	I don't know why.
	Wink wink nud nudge.
	The my is this I know why Massey's unhappy with the congressional oversight.
	They're not moving fast enough.
	They're releasing documents that are heavily redacted or already in the public domain, or in a format that is unusable, 33,000 scanned images.
	So Massey's saying they're not moving fast enough.
	I need my discharge petition.
	I can't successfully steel man uh the opposition to the discharge petition or the or the at the act itself.
	What is the best argument for why they you know the Trump administration would oppose it?
	There isn't okay.
	I mean, their view is it it the reason to oppose it is that the records are now unreliable and it will implicate innocent people.
	That that that's the argument is that it could incriminate innocent people because they believe the records are no longer trustworthy.
	No, no, no, but the thing is it already has incriminated anybody who might be innocent.
	Uh uh Alec, anyone in the black book is incriminated.
	Uh, anyone who went to the island is already incriminated.
	It can't incriminate them more, and I don't think it's going to incriminate more people.
	It could only actually exonerate uh Stephen Hawking that he didn't actually engage in you know some nasty orgy that has been the butt of jokes on Family Guy ever since.
	Yeah, and uh the other the the nervousness uh otherwise, I think with some observers, but as well, it wasn't I I love the meme version from Il Del Nado Trumpo.
	I don't know if you have that of Bill Gates' confession at the White House.
	Oh god, that was funny.
	Yeah, hold on.
	I'll I'll get that one in a second.
	But it was uncomfortable.
	It's sort of a bridge between the vaccine topics and big tech topics that we'll be getting into.
	But uh, but related to there's there's one guy more than anybody uh who would be implicated according to our current FBI director, back when he was an FBI director, but now is our current FBI director.
	Bill Gates is all over the Epstein files.
	And I think the concern is gonna be like there's some Steve Bannon was not happy about that dinner, Alex Jones, a little nervous about that dinner.
	And I from an uh from a from a perception perspective, who in the White House thinks it's a great idea on the same week the Epstein files are being disclosed, in which Bill Gates is one of the most principled Bill Gates and Bill Clinton are the two big names connected other than Mossad to Epstein.
	And you decide to have a dinner with Bill Gates.
	This is somebody someone in the chat said, Viva, it's not for the chess.
	And I'm like, that dinner looked more like a public humiliation ritual for Bill Gates than for well, this is what I wanted to bring up just one second here.
	Uh Gloria all red.
	You got Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green in front of anti-Trump Epstein posters and Gloria all read.
	This is how you know it's been hijacked and politicized, but you Barnesy Asphred here, hold on a second.
	Uh the White House dinner, I think it was this one.
	Yeah, here.
	This is it's a work of art, this meme.
	Listen to this.
	Uh well, I just wanted to apologize for every single fucking version of Windows that sucked, which is basically all of them.
	Also, sorry for creating viruses just so I can profit from selling you the antivirus software.
	And on that note, sorry for spreading real viruses by profiting from vaccines and shit.
	Also, sorry for sterilizing so many of you.
	There's just too many of us, and some of you are not nice.
	That's why I'm trying to block out the sun.
	Anyway, I just came here to ask for a pardon from all the Epstein shit.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Uh, it's it's glorious.
	Uh I'm convinced though that this was a public humiliation ritual.
	That there's no realm of the universe where Trump can look at Gates and say, uh, we're gonna do business in the future.
	I can see that with Zuckerberg to uh to a greater degree, but not with Gates.
	Uh but yeah, that that that dinner, uh it's either sabotage or it's Epstein Files week and the week they go after Robert Kennedy.
	So the you know, Bill Gates and Robert Kennedy is the uh the the ultimate uh opposed source, uh you know, sources of influence.
	And I think it it also from a policy perspective, it's a concern about how strong is the antitrust division gonna be under the Trump administration, given some early uh efforts that did not, you know, that were appear to be sabotaged by politically connected people in the administration, including the attorney general's office, maybe not her herself.
	So, and then they see you know that dinner, and then you know what happened this week.
	Well, Google got hit with a big verdict, justifiably so the big antitrust decision that judge who wrote that aggressive DC uh decision, uh then completely walked back most of the enforcement.
	This is Judge Reminds Judge Meadow, right?
	Yeah, just meta basically issued a decision that you know the said, Yeah, we caught you, now I'm gonna let you off.
	Uh the same week that and then the Google CEO executives are uh there in the White House.
	I mean, it's it it's it's making some people uncomfortable.
	Uh, because like okay, it's one thing to align with the tech bros for the purpose, and the one guy who wasn't there was the most important tech person from the MAGA.
	This is I I didn't I didn't realize that until people pointed it out it was Elon Musk, and he said, I can't I'm busy, I'll have a rep be there, and I don't think they had a representative there.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The uh and it it's that he's like, I'm I'm not on board on all of this.
	So the yeah, I I think there's I think there's some degree of uh lack of appreciation in the Trump White House.
	How much those tech overlords are hated?
	I mean, Bill Gates is is despised.
	He's he's a he's a criminal.
	I mean, that's that's the good thought experiment.
	Who would have been worse?
	Fauci would have been worse, Albert Burla might have been worse, and uh George Soros would have been worse.
	I'm trying to think of anybody else.
	I mean, and so it's uh I think that's where the nervousness is.
	The nervousness is are like you see it from Steve Bannon, especially.
	Now he Bainan's more skeptical of what he calls the tech bros than I am, but I think there's a lot of legitimacy to his concerns.
	And I'm not sure that the Trump White House is uh absorbing the the message on those concerns, and that that's a uh that's an issue.
	And I mean, hopefully they appeal that uh that weak remedy issued by the the judge.
	I mean, it was good to see a half a billion dollar verdict for invading privacy, but this is what big tech does.
	And and to have Zuckerberg, who Zuckbucks helped cost President Trump the last election, and whose mass censorship was a major problem on one end, Bill Gates on the other, two guys who helped have sap have done more to sabotage him than anybody, sit right close to him like that, and you know, laughing and smiling with each other.
	Uh I don't think they thought that would be a good look uh within his base.
	It's really not a good look, but it's definitely not a good look.
	The same week these Epstein file legal issues, the Google getting out of trouble on DO from the antitrust division.
	That's you know, uncomfortable.
	Uh that's funny.
	You know, even I say the the blade, subdued decision in Google antitrust may help keep a monopoly in power.
	After five years of the DOJ against Google, federal judge concluded that the disruptive forces of an art of artificial intelligence technology will have a better chance of hobbling on an illegal monopoly than any restraint imposed by a court order.
	What do you think it is it is uh you try not to think people say you know uh crazy things or what I think are not uh you know, he's been bought, he's he's uh I had a disagreement, Robert, where it went back to the golden, not the golden buzzer, the golden pager.
	And never someone in the chat, Scotty 808 said it all changed after the uh golden pager than and yeah, who gave Trump specifically on Israel?
	I was like, no, didn't that happen recently?
	This started before.
	He gave the buzzer, the pager on February 4th.
	Like that was right early on into the presidency.
	And then I'm trying to like reassess my own conclusions in light of that timeline, which I didn't appreciate.
	Uh, But people say that people want to say that he's been compromised.
	Yeah, these types of um actions, if you don't think it's 4D5G or keeping your enemies closer.
	Who the hell thought it was a good idea to do business with with Bill Gates?
	I mean, and and Milan, not Melania.
	What's Bill Gates' wife or ex-wife's name?
	Melinda.
	Melinda.
	Sorry, that's close enough that I can get confused.
	She said it was because of Epstein.
	I mean, it's it's it's it's bizarre.
	I see it as a humiliation ritual, and hopefully I'm right.
	We'll see in due course.
	Robert, what do you have left?
	Uh we've got, you know, uh medical debt is now gonna get added to your uh credit report.
	I think in way I'm not as fond of this Trump administration legal move.
	Uh guess who is responsible for those California wildfires, according to a lawsuit being brought by the federal government.
	Jewish lasers.
	Ha ha.
	I'm joking.
	Uh uh is it gonna be homeless?
	Is it gonna be arsons?
	Homeless utilities.
	The uh, I mean, Arson is probably but right nearby, but the utilities have long been caused causing that issue.
	And California has been inconsistent uh with its special relationship that it has with those powerful utilities.
	Same thing for Lahaina fires were caused by the utility polls or the power lines.
	Yes, exactly.
	So the uh uh we've got uh uh uh the uh a uh actual partial pro se win out of a federal court, you know, it shows the value to all the way up to the federal appeals court and got him to reinstate part of a civil rights claim.
	So, you know, the credit to him.
	Amazon now gonna have to face a class action for some of its various big tech schemes and scams.
	The uh, and then there's a student in in the constant ongoing debate about college sports, someone is suing over the red shirt rule uh about whether they can require you to red shirt, whether that how that impacts your eligibility, uh, the as the you know, the the constant continuous clash between perceived amateurism and a very money-driven industry or very money uh dominant industry, uh, the continues in the in the legal and political space.
	So let's do one more here, then we'll head on over to locals.
	But let me uh just read a few of the crumble rants that have uh popped up.
	The constitution follows the government, due process is not given to citizens.
	It is a restriction on government power to kill people.
	Uh not just not just citizens.
	That would be a it would not be due process laws applicable to the Venezuela case.
	The Venezuela case would fall under the commander-in-chief issues constitutionally.
	Does it, you know, the and uh and the just uh the America has passed its own version of a war crimes law, war crimes act.
	Uh there's executive orders they've mentioned that prohibit assassination, but that's just the pre a prior president.
	Uh you usually the current president isn't obligated by that.
	They can overturn and modify those executive orders.
	And Trump may have issued an executive order that I think is still secret concerning a lot of this activities related to drug cartels.
	Uh, but because an international waters, the it comes under international law, and then it comes under whether it constitutionally is it within its commander-in-chief duties, and the and then it comes under whether it's a war crime under the war crimes act passed by the United States under our own federal law from like an impeachment perspective and that sort of thing.
	And the key is ultimately it all comes down to self-defense.
	Is there a robust self-defense for the country in the actions taken by President Trump?
	All right, and we got to Alex Davy Duke says um I'm a bit over here.
	Canada's run by Eastern Canadian Globalists, time for Western Canada, starting with Alberta to separate with an improved U.S. constitution.
	Can history always been from top down?
	Did I hear right?
	They uh that there was a stay issued on the killing the birds.
	Uh not that I heard of.
	I saw some news, uh, it was on our locals board.
	Somebody posted a link that the uh that there might have been a stay issue from killing the ostriches.
	Let me I'm gonna I'm gonna double check with Katie herself.
	Uh, but no, the last news I heard was that they were coming to to do it.
	Uh Lord of the Reese says JD Vance is a gay op manufactured by Peter Teal.
	Okay, I have no no knowledge of that.
	Toronto's taken over by South Asian Indians, seeks Pakistanis, millions of fake students while unemployment skyrocks.
	The great replacement is in high gear, absolutely.
	Randy Edwards says global crossing a consortium of banks and IT corpse.
	Laid fiber link to China, India filed for bankruptcy after completion, sticking taxpayers with the bill and transferring IT jobs overseas.
	Cut link.
	Four kids says Washington State ESHB 5031.
	1531 removes informed consent, avoids opt-out, and authorizes vaccination of all people six months and older.
	How is this even legal?
	Uh, could Trump declare war on these countries.
	Okay, so we got that.
	Uh Louis the Lobster link is in the chat, by the way.
	Get uh get a Louis the Lobster book.
	I know that Neurodivergent has been spreading it.
	Thank you very much, Neuro.
	Give everyone the link to locals.
	And um let me just read a few while everyone makes their way over to locals.
	Let's just read a few of the tip questions, and we're gonna get the rest after we get there, go all the way to the bottom.
	Big tech dinner was a Susie Wiles soiree, parents simple, says Kimmy Hunt.
	Bobby 84094 says, How do you sanction Russian oil without the price of oil going up?
	Sounds like a good way to screw ourselves.
	The point was missed.
	Kennedy is willing to ban X chemicals.
	X chemical because it's bad.
	He's not one as bad.
	Y chemical because it's bad.
	If the answer is free, then why even bother banning X chemical?
	Well, hold on.
	I I don't think he's banning food dyes in general.
	I guess you could still get it, just trying to not have it be in food.
	Uh where you I mean I uh I guess it's in that capacity, you can go and get the food die and add it to your food if you want.
	What he's prohibiting it is that you he's actually giving you more choice by not having it in there to begin with.
	If you want to add something, add it however you want.
	Uh that is the Gulf of America, says Dan Sends and we have the right to do whatever we want.
	I don't think that was in the Gulf of America.
	I think that was uh further down.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Thank you.
	No, it was outside the Gulf of America.
	Yeah, it was uh uh it was uh in the Atlantic, technically.
	All right, we're gonna I'm gonna so we're gonna go over to the locals for our after party, everybody.
	The link if you want to come to New Orleans, and uh I'm gonna do a book signing somewhere there.
	Uh Calgary's coming up soon.
	That's gonna be cool.
	Barnes, what do you have coming up this week for the rumble crowd before we head over to locals?
	So the there'll be bourbons uh the uh Tuesday and Wednesday.
	Uh not sure if there will be Thursday may have to be on the road uh Thursday or Friday.
	Uh but we should have some Barnes briefs, some bourbons, uh the uh some uh potentially some hush hushes uh up this week at Viva Barnes Law that locals dot com.
	Amazing.
	I will be live uh as usual throughout the week.
	Jessica Rose, I think is gonna come on at some point.
	Uh I'll reach, I'll see if Lauren Chen wants to come on and talk because I've I would be, I think it's time for her to tell her story, but she's already told it.
	And uh I'll get some good guests, but otherwise, three o'clock daily on Rumble.
	You all know that.
	Locals, here we come.
	Everyone else, uh including Com YouTube.
	Thank you for being here.
	Make sure you've liked and subscribed before you head out and share my videos because YouTube is an ass ho and is definitely uh not even recommending the the the vlogs I'm putting out to subscribers.
	So uh come on over to Rumble, Rumble people or locals.

▲