Viva & Barnes - Ep. 285: Visa Revocation No-Go! Sortor Arrested! Ostrich Crisis! 2A Win! Comey Defense & MORE!

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 5, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:21:05

Ep. 285: Visa Revocation No-Go! Sortor Arrested! Ostrich Crisis! 2A Win! Comey Defense & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs.
	I bet you thought I was going to start tonight's show off with something relating to the ostriches.
	You would be wrong.
	We shall start off with the honorable.
	Excuse me.
	The honorable Wab Kinu, Premier of Manitoba.
	Behold.
	We're gonna gather here this afternoon that you should not be protesting a minister of the crown's right to serve the people of Manitoba.
	And I would say to the goofballs out front, if you have an issue, you have an issue with me.
	I am the one who decided to keep this minister at the cabinet table.
	I'm invited.
	We're gonna gather here for those of you who don't know uh what's going on in Canadian politics.
	Wab Kinew is a uh First Nations uh premier of Manitoba.
	In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, while everyone was rushing to the internet with their hot takes, that as far as I'm concerned, should land them on no fly lists and should sure as hell bar them from entering these United States of America for the rest of their lives.
	You know, freedom, freedom to talk, freedom to fa, freedom to foe.
	Ooh.
	That's mine.
	That's copyrighted right now.
	Freedom to fa, freedom to foe.
	So Wab Keanu, the Premier of Manitoba, he had a minister.
	You know what?
	One of these um I'm gonna weigh my words so as to not get myself in trouble.
	Nahani Fontaine, seen in a file photo, has sent out an apology for a controversial Instagram message she shared on her account.
	If you haven't uh heard the story, Manitoba Cabinet Minister won't lose job over repost condemning Charlie Kirk, premier families minister Nahani Fontaine apologizes for her actions for second time in two months.
	Manitoba's premier says cabinets comments a cabinet minister reposted about U.S. conservative activist Charlie Kirk on the day he was shot, murdered.
	They say shot, like you know, for those who don't know that he was brutally murdered.
	They might not understand the severity of it.
	They're concerning, but she'll remain in the cabinet.
	Families minister Nahani Fontaine shared a message from uh uh Che Jim, a U.S.-based indigenous activist for several hours Thursday on her Instagram post before removing it.
	The post criticized Kirk as a quote, racist, xenophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic individual who, quote, stood for nothing but hate.
	Can you imagine just how stupid you have to be to say something so baseless and idiotic?
	But they probably only read the CBC news, so forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do.
	Premier Wab Kinu said Friday he spoke to Fontaine after he found out a boot, the post, and asked her to issue an apology.
	I wrote my will before the last election because I recognize that there is a non-zero possibility that being a person in the public eye, I can be.
	What the heck are they talking about here?
	I don't even know what that means.
	I asked our prime minister, our minister to apologize because I want us to be a force for openness and dialogue and taking the temperature down, Kinu said.
	Well, the taking that temperature down means demonizing someone who just got murdered in front of thousands of students, women, and children.
	That's what it means.
	It means blaming the victim.
	Well, if she hadn't been wearing a shirt that scorched short, she sure as wouldn't have gotten sexually assaulted.
	Oh, yeah, he was he was he was he was hateful, racist, xenophobic, transphobic, just Islamophobic, anti-s.
	Just throw in anything.
	Throw in any ism phobic whatever to rationalize in your evil so-called liberal mind.
	That's from the ND, another man that they're liberals.
	Monsters.
	And so Wab Kinu facing pressure to fire her, says, I'm not firing her.
	And if you guys have a problem with that, you're goofballs.
	You're goofballs who think that it's uh appropriate not to fire a minister who reposted something which is nothing other than a blatant lie, defamatory, slanderous, uh in you want to talk about uh intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	That's what it would be.
	Blaming the victim.
	But no, Wab Kinu is a man of principle who doesn't stand with his indigenous brothers when they protest the slaughter of ostriches up in British Columbia.
	Uh licks the government boot that probably put members of his own family in residential schools.
	But uh yeah, no, no, no, he's easy.
	You're a goofball if you have a problem with that.
	And you know, take take down the temperature.
	I I love it that the people who sit there spouting the most hateful violence inducing rhetoric out there.
	Lecture others about taking down the rhetoric, toning down the rhetoric.
	It's like it's exactly like when Justin Trudeau got caught wearing blackface.
	He took it as an opportunity for him to lecture me on racism.
	When he got caught groping the reporter back in 2000, he takes that as an opportunity to lecture me on misogyny.
	The son of a bitch that these hypocrites are take their own evils as an opportunity to lecture me on their own immorality.
	Tone down the rhetoric.
	When I did my vlog yesterday, uh talking about how NBC News and The Guardian were referring to the would-be assassin of Justice Kavanaugh as a woman.
	The dude looks like the lead actor from from uh Spider-Man.
	I forget what his name is.
	Michael Holland.
	And they're lecturing us.
	Tone down the rhetoric.
	How could anyone have ever thought of going to uh assassinate a Supreme Court judge?
	I don't know.
	It's not like they heard Chuck the reptilian Schumer spouting sentences like this.
	I want to tell you, Gore Zuch.
	I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.
	Jail.
	Jail.
	I'm all for freedom of speech, First Amendment rights, jail.
	You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
	You will know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
	You won't know what hit you.
	Well, it might be a crowbar, which is what the man who showed up to harm Kavanaugh had in his car.
	It might be a bullet in the gun that he had in his car.
	You know what hit you.
	Now you guys got to take down the rhetoric.
	You know, it's after we killed Charlie Kirk.
	After we uh nearly uh assassinate Justice Kavanaugh after three failed assassinations on Donald John Trump.
	You guys better take down the rhetoric.
	Don't weaponize our attempts to kill you against us.
	You um now what God, Chuck Schumer makes me want to vomit.
	Listening to his disgusting voice makes me want to vomit.
	Uh a lazy drively act, you're in the phone, click big bear.
	Serenity now.
	Serenity now.
	Now, people, uh, before we get into tonight's show, Barnes is going to be here in a second.
	Uh, we got to thank our sponsors.
	There are three tonight because I didn't get to thank our sponsor on Friday because I did that amazing interview with Dinesh D'Souza, and um, it was live.
	But before we get into it, first things first, I'm gonna be going to Logano, Switzerland with uh the Rumble team.
	And it's gonna be amazing.
	It's called Plan B. How do you plan for plan B, people?
	Crypto.
	Cryptocurrency is no longer emerging.
	It's here, and the latest move cements that reality in a big way.
	Trump media just inked a massive $6.4 billion deal with Yorkville Acquisition Corp and Crypto.com, the crypto platform trusted by millions of users worldwide.
	They're teaming up to scoop up $6.4 billion in CRO, the power host token that fuels fast, low defy staking rewards and real-world perks like cash back on your spends to establish America's first CRO, Treasury, Trump Media Group CRO strategy.
	When it's done, this new company will be the biggest publicly traded CRO holder out there.
	You want in on the action.
	I don't tell people to buy things, I don't give investment advice.
	I just know that a lot of our audience is invested in crypto, and some of them are heavily invested in crypto.
	And what better place to trade than on crypto.com.
	We can make crypto great again.
	And you can have uh methodologies, ways of protecting yourself of an overzealous, tyrannical government.
	You go to Bitcoin, you go to go to crypto.com, you can buy Bitcoin, Ethereum.
	Although I look, I don't understand anything about it.
	When I get to um Logano, I'm going to interview.
	Uh I'm I'm not sure if I'm allowed telling you who I'm going to interview.
	I've got two very interesting interviews.
	I'm going to get someone to finally explain how Bitcoin works to me.
	Uh, but I'm told Bitcoin is the only one that anybody should invest in, and you know you're wasting your money on the unlimited issuance of Dogecoin, Ethereum, whatever.
	Uh, but if you want to buy it, this is where you go.
	And uh crypto.com.
	The link is in the description.
	I forget what it is now.
	You go use my link, it's in the description right there.
	Crypto.com, people is a way to make sure that you are protected against the overreaches of government.
	And the other way to do it as well is gold.
	These are these are basic things, crypto, gold.
	Hey, that's me right there.
	Did they spell my name with an FR?
	Okay, they spell my name with a Y. I forgive them.
	There's no problem with that.
	People, central banks, hedge funds, even politicians.
	Get that on here.
	Look at that beautiful face.
	The very same ones who smile on camera while running up record debt.
	They're all doing the same thing right now, quietly moving out of the dollar and into gold and silver.
	Who's left holding the bag when the dollar keeps slipping?
	Everyday Americans, families who work hard, who save responsibility, who do everything right, but still watch their paychecks shrink.
	You sit with money in the bank, it loses value year over year.
	Their retirement accounts losing value.
	And their trust in the system in the dumpsters.
	The elites know better.
	They know hard assets.
	Gold and silver are the lifeboats when the dollar takes on water.
	That's why they're loading up.
	And the truth, you don't need to be left behind.
	You can do what they're doing and protect yourself too.
	That's why gold safe exchange comes in.
	They make it simple and secure to move part of your savings into real physical medals.
	You can hold absolute transparency, an A triple press rating from the Bureau of Breader Businesses, the BB, the Triple B price match guarantee.
	So you always know you're getting the best deal.
	The elites have already made their move.
	Don't let them leave you with worthless paper while they walk away with real value.
	Take control, protect your savings, protect your future.
	Click on the link below.
	Uh click on the link below, mention Viva and get access to what the team is offering.
	They'll provide an additional $1,500 in free gold and silver with qualifying purchases.
	The link is in the description.
	And um hard assets, gold and silver.
	One day, someone is going to take me up on my idea of shapes of uh gold that make them easy to transport.
	The link is in the description.
	And by the way, yeah, but between gold and Bitcoin, you hedge with physical, you hedge with digital, and you make yourself uncancelable by governments that freeze bank accounts willy-nilly, like they're doing in tyrannical Canada.
	Uh, and we're gonna start off the show with frickin' ostriches, man.
	Robert, I see him in the backdrop.
	Come on in when you're ready.
	And the question is this.
	By the way, I'm gonna do my best to get to all of the commut chats, all of the rumble rants, and we get to the tip questions.
	If I miss it and you're gonna be miffed if I miss it, don't give it because I don't like people being miffed.
	Robert Barnes, I love the fact that I'm like a full six inches shorter than you, but on the internet, I dominate you.
	So how goes the battle.
	Good, good.
	Uh the uh put out a free pick uh yesterday on the sports picks rumble show with cricket.
	Uh told people that the crazy Uncle Bob pick of the week was for UCLA at 20 to 1 to pull the upset over Penn State.
	And they did biggest upset in 40 years.
	Uh to one.
	20 to 1.
	So the uh, you know, those that followed uh trailed your UFC picks were uh were up good, even though the finale uh was disappointing, but the rest cashed, so or most of them cash.
	And the uh, and so but yeah, that was that was a big winner.
	That that was fun.
	And then put out uh some free picks on X uh on Calci along with it, sports picks.locals.com.
	The uh on the Czech elections, where another populist revolt occurred in central Europe.
	Uh and the populist candidate exceeded.
	If you took it, you made about two to one, three to one on your money.
	So congratulations to all those who trailed that.
	Congratulations, the ones who took this government shutdown to happen for the government shutdown to last 10 days or more.
	The uh the those are all surging or already cashed in the market.
	So that's been fun.
	We'll have a uh what are the odds uh with Richard Barris Peoples Pundit Daily on Monday at 2 p.m. Eastern time.
	The uh where we'll be going over uh about a dozen or so of the Cauchy election markets, shutdown markets, New York City mayor's race, New Jersey, Virginia, Virginia Attorney General's race, where it turns out the Democratic candidate for the Virginia Attorney General had Tyler Robinson-like fantasies of murdering his political opponents, and he wants to be the lead law enforcement official in the state of Virginia.
	Uh and Democrats still haven't called for his uh withdrawal.
	So we'll talk about that.
	We'll talk about we'll throw in the Dutch elections and the Irish elections and some more stuff.
	So the uh uh a lot of fun.
	And then big announcement, Wednesday.
	Uh, we will have a special edition sidebar uh at uh 11.
	I think it's 11 a.m. Eastern time, I think is the time.
	The uh uh with the Duran with Alexander uh uh McCorris and Alex Christopher as we look at the risk of war with Venezuela, uh war with Iran, war with Russia, everything that's happening in Gaza, all the European elections.
	The uh we'll cover the globe.
	We'll go all the way around the globe with the Duran on Wednesday at 11 o'clock special edition, uh, as the uh as were as the war uh drums you know continue to build, even as President Trump tries to get peace in Gaza.
	Uh so the uh we'll we'll cover that landscape on Wednesday.
	So a couple of cool special edition shows uh there.
	But yeah, we got a uh we got a uh as always a busy docket here for the Law for the People show on Sunday.
	Robert, first of all, I will address the uh accusations that we've coordinated your tie with my glasses.
	We did, everybody.
	I called them last night.
	I said, make sure you wear a nice light blue.
	Um yeah, these were the replacements for my broken glasses, and whatever, I gotta wear them, people.
	I'm not getting a new pair of glasses.
	They look kind of fancy.
	Well, they're they're cheap-ish, but the of the old frame, they keep breaking.
	And I think like the I think it's the actual transition from heat to cold that you have so much variance in temperature that these weren't made for Florida.
	They've broken three times, and the last time they didn't have the same color.
	I like these.
	They're they're not bad.
	But I do like looking like the crazy Karen's because I throw them off when I go to their concerts and when I infiltrate their crowds.
	And speaking of which, Robert, so tonight we're talking about Nick Sortor getting arrested for infiltrating a protest and then getting arrested after an altercation.
	I'm gonna get him on this week.
	I know I will to discuss it.
	Uh, what else do we have on the menu?
	And you know, another uh female reporter who got beat up and then lied about later by the Portland City police.
	So the top topic tonight is everything related to the insanity of Portland from the last week.
	First Antifa uh targeting doing riots uh at the ICE facilities to try to interfere with and interrupt ice.
	By the way, that is currently being celebrated in the movie uh one battle after another that the Hollywood is going to push to win best Oscar.
	That's right.
	Uh the Hollywood right now is pushing a film, celebrating and glamorizing and glorifying attacks on ice facilities.
	Uh if you know, I mean, that gives you an idea of how deep this cultural rop goes.
	The uh, as Elon Musk discovered, it's all over Netflix, uh, where you when you're not paying attention, your five-year-old is busy watching a tranny promotional show.
	Robert, that is that is I I can't get over it, and I don't understand how that's not like officially child abuse.
	I mean, people are recirculating a video that was out of Canada of CBC News doing like a tra uh a uh a drag uh for kids expose.
	It was actually a 2019 thing that they did where they're sitting kids down, talking to them about drag and how the kids are dragging, explaining what it is.
	How is that not some form of of uh exploitative behavior for children to throw in outright trans characters in these cartoons for for juveniles?
	And let's remember this is the same Netflix that promoted cuties, uh, which was you know borderline CP.
	The uh uh yeah, so uh it's deeply unsettling, and we'll see what uh progresses out of it.
	But the uh the the cultural influence of Hollywood is a or as uh Leonard Skinner and some others used to call them Holly weird, uh continues to be a major problem that we are facing in the cultural uh uh battle for the minds of our own children.
	The uh, but and we saw it on full display in Portland, uh, then it escalated to them attacking a female journalist, then uh attacking and then arresting Nick uh sorter, another uh independent journalist.
	Uh, and then after that, rushing to court after President Trump uh invoked the National Guard of Oregon, a federal judge rushed in and said, Oh no, you don't.
	You don't declare the you don't bring in a national guard here in Portland, uh, as they are in full-blown insurrection.
	There are things that even Bull Connor never imagined doing that liberal democratic cities, counties, and states are doing across this country in promoting and pitching and pushing violence and providing the protection network along with the political permission slip network to do it.
	So that's our top topic.
	The uh other topics we have the sentencing of P. Diddy and the sentencing of the uh other training assassin would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.
	Uh very interesting sentencing there, the uh Democratic judge gave.
	We've got the government shutdown.
	Uh, the to what what powers does the president have if this shutdown continues to permanently get rid of our uh excessive uh bloat in the uh or whatever you want to call it in the uh administrative state.
	We've got uh SCOTUS, SCOTUS' term starts full blown.
	Uh Trump got a win this past week.
	Uh, and then there's a lot of big cases there.
	The Federal Reserve case might be a lot bigger than just Lisa Cook.
	Uh, will the Supreme Court finally clarify the Humphrey executors case and properly restrict it and constrict it to its very limited terms that it was originally intended to.
	We've got uh birthright citizenship at SCOTUS.
	We've got third party standing to challenge the president's action at SCOTUS.
	We've got class actions at uh related to attacking Trump and getting uh nationwide injunctions by disguise, which the courts have been doing all summer long, uh as the Justice Alito warned would occur.
	Well, now those cases are getting up to SCOTUS, medical malpractice cases.
	When can a lawyer talk to his own client during a trial?
	I'm gonna have a this one's gonna be fun because uh it's in line with my understanding of um we'll we'll talk.
	Can you talk to your client during a recess about the testimony?
	Some dim wit in the chat's like, oh, it's boards getting blind shot for the shutdown.
	Never have dim wit.
	You know, tune in more the uh uh from the second uh big win for the second amendment, the right to go to the post office and be able to have self-defense rights.
	The uh visa revocations hit a major First Amendment snag as a Reagan appointee.
	Details how members of the Trump administration for uh ideological and political reasons, uh, were revoking visas according to his findings, though there were a lot of peculiarities in that ruling, uh, including uh including like a text at the beginning of the ruling.
	Things people have never seen a Supreme Court justice do before.
	And if you're wondering maybe why, well, it is a Reagan appointee, which should give you an idea of how old that guy is.
	Uh, however, he might have the right ruling, even though that would be an unpopular opinion in many political circles.
	Career criminal kills again.
	Uh, we'll talk about the career criminal problem that is continuing to percolate up, particularly in democratic jurisdictions, but sometimes in this case, in a conservative Republican jurisdiction in South Carolina, because they're no more immune from it than anyone else, it seems.
	Then we've got uh James Comey, who might get perp walked this week.
	Uh, the uh some FBI agents are so outraged.
	They're saying they will resign if he gets perp walked.
	By golly, please walk them.
	Get those bums out of there.
	Uh, and he's got a new defense.
	Uh, according to other retired federal judges and others, all of his smearing and spying and scamming and scheming and illegal activities was first amendment activity.
	Uh, wow.
	Well, how interesting that that's what these judges find is first amendment.
	Is my Matt Taibbi said that doesn't hold water for half a second.
	Well, Robert, it it it free it feeds in.
	He's free to leak classified information.
	He's free to find out.
	Freedom to fa, freedom to foe.
	I love it already.
	All right, sorry.
	Indeed.
	Uh, then we've got IRS loses big.
	Now, the party that won, the 3M Fers, the 3M uh company.
	Uh, I'm not a big fan of for obvious reasons, but the uh uh related all their vaccine mandate litigation and how they treat people in general and how they scam people and steal from people and hurt people.
	Uh, but the uh but when it's against the IRS, it's like bad guy, bad guy.
	Uh well, I'll I'll boo the IRS in this instance because what they were trying to do through the 3M case was try to tax you for money you legally can't even receive.
	That's right.
	The IRS wants to tax you for money you legally can't get.
	Not only you didn't get, you legally can't get.
	That's how out of control the Infernal Revenue Service is.
	Then we got a couple of bonus cases, possibility of peace with Hamas, uh Nirvana, as we forecast, uh wins again in that suit.
	Uh Zillow and Redfin get sued for their antitrust monopolistic behaviors, and per a popular question asked on our board at Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
	Uh, what is the story?
	Is there any updates on the Charlie Kirk assassination?
	So there are some evidentiary developments.
	Uh and well, the uh, as well as dealing with as the turning point people and others are having to deal with the fallout from uh crazy Queen Candace, uh, the queen of the libels herself, uh, who has been busy libeling more people, just libel that person, this person.
	Oh, I'm just asking questions.
	Well, doesn't everybody know the Jews run the world?
	I'm just asking questions.
	Doesn't everybody uh know that the uh my latest kooky conspiracy theory is absolutely true?
	I'm just asking questions.
	No, you're not, you crazy kook.
	Uh, She is the queen of the kooks.
	Candace Owens is approving it regularly.
	We do have some evidentiary updates from various methodologies of analysis and information that has come out, from including from the Gary Hughes channel and some other channels.
	So we'll cover that per popular request at the board as well.
	Robert, I'll read one here just uh over on ComicTube.
	Calling someone fat look at that nutbag there on the left.
	Calling someone fascist, racist, white supremacist, and Nazi should be considered hate speech, use the left's laws against them.
	We'll get to using the left's laws against them before we even get into anything, Robert.
	So let's do the update of what's going on in Canada because they've had the first confirmed death of an ostrich under the custody of the CFIA, the Canadian food inspection agency.
	There was a video, I'll share it, uh I'll just run it while I'm talking.
	But Drea Humphrey of Rebel News put this video out earlier today.
	It's a long video, and you can't really see much, except it seems to confirm.
	Let me just turn the volume down that these are the CFIA agents.
	They're wearing hazmat suits because the situation has gone full hazmat.
	And they're supposed to be administering electrolytes, and I believe it was to the now deceased ostrich.
	And so they go in with this bag.
	And I mean, electrolytes, it's not like out of um idiocracy where you just you know put Brando and water fountains and people drink it.
	Uh, they were supposed to administer electrolytes to a sick, dehydrated ostrich.
	What this video seems to show, and I'll play while I'm talking, is that they basically went and dumped out the electrolytes because there's no way that they could have administered them to the sick ostrich.
	And I say sick, neglected, dehydrated ostrich in the time frame of this video.
	And the ostrich has since died.
	And so I, you know, I'm I'm going hard and I'm gonna go hard against the RCMP.
	I'm gonna go hard against uh the liberals, you know, they're their scum and everybody knew it.
	I'm gonna go hard against Pierre Poliev.
	But this just went from custody of animals to animal cruelty because within the two weeks of the CFIA's custody of these animals, one has now died.
	And the CFIA came up with a statement said this animal had underlying conditions and the farm was able to care for it for a while.
	Yeah, like you know, 20 years, and in two weeks it died under their care.
	It's animal cruelty.
	And then the question is who's going to enforce provincial or federal law?
	You have the RCMP there, the armed Gestapo of Canada right now, facilitating it.
	I doubt they're going to investigate their own facilitating of animal abuse.
	Uh, whether or not they're going to do anything at the provincial level, we don't know.
	And we don't know how many ostriches have died either.
	Though the email from the CFIA refers to that ostrich, her name was Spirit.
	Uh and you know, fate, I say loves irony, but it's like sick torture.
	Her name was Spirit.
	They refer to her as ostrich 710, has passed away from dehydration and after being neglected for two weeks.
	So it it, in my view, got criminal, and it's official criminal animal abuse right now, and people need to be held accountable.
	Uh, the only question is who's going to do it.
	I don't hold much faith that it's going to be the people facilitating the torture, the RCMP, who are going to now go press charges, but raise uh holy hell when it comes to this issue.
	It's not getting any better.
	They've got the first death now, and this changes the dynamic a lot.
	That's what's going on in Canada.
	Robert, um, speaking of, let's start with the um shutdown.
	Say it again.
	The shutdown.
	Yeah, so okay.
	The government's been shut down.
	I wouldn't know.
	I mean, I say this sort of glibly.
	I don't rely on the government for the things that people who rely on the government for might see delays in payments for um uh certain benefits and certain things that the people there are vulnerable people who rely on the government for these things.
	So I haven't noticed the shutdown.
	I saw Thomas Massey jokingly put up a post and says during the government shutdown, you see a lot less chemtrails in the sky.
	I don't know, but I was looking at the sky in Florida.
	I still see what look like chemtrails.
	Um, but what so what is what's the effect of a shutdown?
	Does it do people lose their paychecks or do they just get it back later?
	Who can Trump now basically permanently cut from the feds because you know, because of the shutdown, and now we can sort of just terminate employments.
	What's the net effect of the uh shutdown?
	Who's to blame and what mob mobility does Trump have now to reduce the size of the federal government?
	So Democrats are so accustomed to winning the narrative battle and the PR battle surrounding shutdowns because the first major shutdown in the modern era happened uh a little more than 30 years ago or there about, or almost exactly 30 years ago, after Republicans took the house in 1994 and late 95, used a shutdown to challenge Clinton, And Clinton made it, oh, the Republicans want to cut your Social Security and Medicare and so forth.
	And consequently, it backfired on Republicans, and it pretty much politically has ever since.
	The reason why it didn't this time is it was much better handled by the Trump administration, particularly vice president Vance, uh, who made it all about uh the uh about Democrats wanting illegals to get benefits.
	Now, that wasn't the Democratic narrative.
	The Democratic narrative was they wanted so you you can have a continuing resolution that's a clean continuing resolution.
	What does that mean?
	Clean continuing resolution.
	It means a continuing resolution that doesn't get into anything beyond extending the current budget uh for another 60 to 90 days for discretionary spending.
	Mandatory spending still occurs.
	So all that still occurs.
	They don't shut down the Bureau Prins, they don't shut down the military, they don't shut down law enforcement.
	These things don't get shut down.
	Uh what gets shut down are discretionary areas.
	Now, people can come in and still work, but they're uh they're not getting paid.
	But historically, every time the fur the it ends, they get furloughed.
	They they can choose to work or not work, but they usually get their pay restored to them.
	They're usually reinstated with full pay once the continuing resolution is passed.
	What Democrats did is they would wanted to, because they're so accustomed to winning this political battle, and because they got burned by signing a continuing agreeing to a continuing resolution back earlier in the year, uh, with their base, their base is in rage, their base just wants war, war, war.
	Their base thinks the fascist totalitarian, authoritarian Trump is coming to lock them up tomorrow.
	You know, you have people in Europe saying I can't travel to the United States, I'll get locked up and deported.
	I mean, just insane nonsense.
	But that's that's the level of you know their mindset at the moment.
	And that's putting massive pressure on the Democrats to come up with a pretext.
	And their pretext was they just didn't get ahead of this PR-wise, was that the Obamacare Affordable Care Act uh has a subsidies that President Biden put in for to expand access to uh the Obamacare insurance policies by discounting the premiums and capping them.
	And those subsidies run out the end of this year.
	And Democrats decided they were going to make that their issue to hijack the continuing resolution to support.
	But Vance was very smart, realized let's get ahead of this before they get their ACA narrative out.
	We're gonna get out the narrative that in fact, and this was also true, they want to continue to make sure illegals get health care and government paid compensated for health care.
	And that's a big winner uh on the Republican and GOP side.
	That's why for the first time in forever, they're not Democrats are not dominating the PR battle.
	Give me an idea of how much well, how long the Democrats had planned on this, they already had their little wine conference in wine country planned.
	So to go there for like a week or two.
	So that's why I put out a free pick, you know.
	The for those at sports picks already had the picks month months ago, but was that there would be a shutdown, that the shutdown would last at least 10 days, uh, because under if you understood these underlying dynamics.
	Now the median expectation is that it lasts at least 20 days.
	So that's the sort of background of what's going on.
	The I don't think Democrats, because of their base issues, can come back and sign a clean continuing resolution at this point.
	They're not really in position to do that.
	They're gonna have to keep bleeding out politically, and they don't want to interfere with their wine conference.
	That that would be unfair and unjust.
	So I think that the you'll see it, I think this will drag on uh you know pretty long.
	And it and GOP is winning.
	And the other, the other, it's both political leverage and a potential opportunity, which is uh Russ Vott, OMB Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House, was part of Paul Dance.
	Paul Dan's the man challenging uh Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina.
	By the way, one of the last requests that Charlie Kirk ever made was please defeat Lindsey Graham.
	Uh that was being circulated now.
	He stated at a South Carolina uh church gathering.
	The uh, but the uh Project 2025, they came up with an idea and they said next time there's a shutdown, let's use it as an opportunity to not just furlough employees, but to use what is called an RIF, a reduction in force, because we can use the absence of funding to justify this permanent reduction in force in the administrative bureaucratic state, particularly in the most problematic and politicized agencies.
	So are there any agencies in which you cannot use the RIF because they're, I don't know, integral or essential services to use the code?
	if it's if it's not discretionary, so the areas that they where there's no government shutdown, in other words, not mandatory spending, non-discretionary spending, this RIF will not impact that at all.
	The it only impacts those people already being furloughed.
	And the and they're like, well, since we have this opportunity that there's no money, the money is the basis.
	Look, there's no money, there's a is the basis to do the RIF, the reduction in force.
	And if you're laid off in this process under federal law, you you have to get 60 days notice.
	Uh, you can do 30 days' notice and uh select circumstances that mostly won't apply here.
	So, this is what people saw circulating on social media, they were getting confused by.
	So, the RIF, in order for it to be effective, in order for it to be legally impactful, uh, they presume a 60-day notice and they think the shutdown has to happen 60 days.
	That's not the case.
	The assumption is that if there's a continuing resolution passed with it before that 60 day time period, that they'll reinstate the employees.
	There's no obligation for them to reinstate the employees.
	And those individual employees can go through the merit selection board if they think their termination has been unjustified.
	But as the Supreme Court has been shutting down, all efforts to take this to federal court is one of the free picks I gave out was that the courts ultimately, if when it's finally adjudicated, will not side with the unions.
	Because by the way, a union sued right away, the government union sued, uh guess where?
	San Francisco.
	It's like uh how is how does San Francisco have any bearing on this?
	The uh, I mean, the you talk about venue shopping.
	The venue shopping is so abusive.
	If I did it, I would get sanctioned overnight and they'd be threatening my bar license.
	The left does it every single time and they face no adverse consequence from it.
	And it's a problem, and it's a problem we probably need to fix at the congressional level for.
	As you know, just a quick question, Robert.
	So if they want to get their jobs back and they have and um uh after the furlough, what is required for that?
	Is it sort of like is it Senate?
	You have to go through the merit selection board process.
	So if they do the RIF and they don't uh it no matter how long the uh the the shutdown lasts, if they don't restore their employment, it doesn't matter whether it's 30 days, 60 days, whatever, that if they choose not to change the RIF, which they are entirely entitled to do, and this is what some people are missing, then the net of, but it does give an incentive.
	The longer the if this goes, if the shutdown were to last 60 plus days, it's a little bit cleaner and easier.
	But either way, they have to go through the merit selection board process, but at least during that time period, they don't have power because they've been terminated because all these efforts to go to lower courts and the lower courts enjoining it on these RIF policies, has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court that this is carte planche for the uh for the executive branch to do.
	The their new theory is they're suing under the Administrative Procedures Act, citing the anti-deficiency statute, which the anti-deficiency statute is about not doing things you don't have money for.
	So it's always ridiculous to cite that statute as the predicate for this.
	Uh, but the mostly they're saying they feel oppressed.
	They feel oppressed.
	I don't even know.
	You know, there's whole organizations called like mindful federal worker in these blog about how to deal with the emotional difficulty of being a federal employee with Donald Trump as president.
	Can you imagine?
	I mean, it's probably being federal government money is probably going to some shrink.
	So somebody can deal with their TDS while a federal government employee.
	They're saying they're so psychologically oppressed at the possibility of losing their job.
	I mean, what I mean, the imagine government workers on the taxpayers, uh, well, certain phrase, and the taxpayers' dime, think they should have far more rights than all you ordinary people out there that have uh real jobs.
	The uh so the so I think that they have a chance for this RIF to work.
	What it's doing is it's escalating political risk for the Democrats.
	That how long are they willing to let this in the name of hijacking an agenda in order to support their Obamacare provisions, which is publicly being perceived as helping illegals get health care, so they're already politically bleeding out on that side of the aisle.
	And then of course, Trump introduced the most powerful modern political tool, the meme.
	Uh, the, you know, he's got him dancing with the the Mexican mariachi band, it's him throwing sombreros on everybody, and they're all going nuts.
	Vice President Vance said, Don't worry, if you come back and open up the government, no more sombrero memes.
	Don't worry.
	So the uh that that's our compromise proposal.
	The They're just getting crushed uh in the PR battle on this.
	And it's a great policy opportunity.
	And the only reason it's really understood as a great policy opportunity is thanks to Paul Dan's at Project 2025.
	You can go Dan's for the Senate, South Carolina.
	Great candidate.
	Someone I've known way back, someone who brought me in to the Trump election challenge in 2020.
	The real deal, as he said, I was MAGA before MAGA.
	You can go back and watch Vivas and I's interview of them from a few months back.
	So I think there's a better than average expected chance that the courts do not stop this.
	And that in fact the RIF at least works for the time being.
	And they'll have to go through all the merit selection board to try to get it reversed.
	Robert, it did the merit selection board, the merit selection board, it's just uh reapplying for the job and showing that you that you're well it's arguing that you were wrongfully terminated and that you should be reinstated.
	And the problem is the authority for an RIF is very broad, broad congressionally brought by the executive branch power.
	The and we'll see how much more power that might expand because it relates to the big Humphreys executors case that's being coming up both in the Federal Reserve context and the FTC context before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has taken both cases now.
	Let me play this disgusting video, and we're gonna continue to make clear bigotry will get you nowhere.
	We are fighting to protect the health care of the American people in the face of an unprecedented Republican assault.
	It's it's it's so damn genius.
	But now hold on, because I actually do want to bring up the serious thing.
	This is Jake Tapper finally having to ask Hakeem Jeffries the question.
	So let me ask you about a provision that the Republicans are talking about quite a bit.
	I know you want to talk about, and Democrats want to talk about extending the Obamacare subsidies, which expire at the end of 2025.
	But they talk about the provisions, and it's right here.
	Subtitle E. And this has to do with the repeal of healthcare subtitle changes, and specifically what it is.
	They they're how they characterize it, uh characterize it is you want to give health insurance uh to undocumented immigrants.
	I understand that's not really an accurate depiction, but what it does do is that's a lie.
	It's a lie.
	But what you support does bring back funding for emergency medicaid to hospitals, some of which does pay for undocumented immigrants and people who don't have health insurance.
	I can pause it there.
	Robert, so the argument is I mean, Japper.
	Imagine they contradicted themselves within within two sentences.
	Oh, it's a total lie.
	You're right, absolute lie.
	By the way, it's actually uh it's actually true.
	Here it is, you know what I mean.
	I mean, to Tapper's such a wuss, he couldn't, you know, challenge uh Jeffries on the obvious point.
	Uh, but that it's exactly what they're trying to do, that they're trying to get health care for illegals.
	And I guess they all forgot in 2020 when they're running for president.
	Uh, they all raised their hands that they supported uh health care for illegals, and let's call them what they are under the law.
	There is no you can find the law.
	There's nothing, nowhere in the world does it say undocumented.
	They didn't leave their papers at home, folks.
	They're not like me, and I forgot my license back at the house.
	It's they are not undocumented, they are illegal aliens.
	Robert, it's so amazing.
	I was listening to a documentary with one of my kids today on the Darien Gap, and my kid says, What's a migrant?
	And I said, It's an interesting thing.
	A migrant is the term they gave to illegal aliens because it's it's it's even more uh opaque than immigrant.
	At least immigrant, you know you're dealing with people who are not from the land.
	They call them migrant and undocumented.
	It's like, imagine if I'm driving a car without a license because I didn't have the money to pay for my license.
	Well, would you call me an unlicensed driver?
	No, you'd call me an illegal driver.
	And you know, it it's it's this word game that that is played, and you don't even know that it's being played if you're not paying attention to it.
	Migrant illegal aliens.
	I'm not drunk officer.
	My sobriety is simply undocumented.
	They I mean, it's absurd.
	I mean, and they and they insist on this ridiculous Orwellian language, and then they wonder why people find them laughable.
	I mean, you talk to most ordinary people, they still don't know what the heck undocumented is.
	They, you know, it's like the old uh uh joke where the uh I forget it was that great, not the far side, it was the other one, Calvin.
	It was either Middle Hobbs, yes, Calvin Hobbs.
	The uh where the older guys like uh the the younger hips hipster comes in and says, This was like 20 years ago, but now this is popular and says, Oh, no, no, we don't call them African mayor, we call them people of color.
	And the old guy goes, oh, yeah, colored people.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not colored people.
	People of color because of the old history of it.
	Oh, it was it was um Joey, the guy Joey Swole, uh, who who rate who apologized because he said colored people instead of people of color during a video, and he's like, I didn't realize that it's people of color and colored people is really old and antiquated.
	It's like, holy shit, dude.
	First of all, I'm a colored person.
	I'm I'm beigeish, depending on the you know, depending on the day.
	Um, yeah, yeah, uh okay, insanity, but control language and you control thought itself.
	Yeah, unless I checked the whites of color too.
	So I've never understood that reference.
	The nor do most of them like it.
	Uh, you know, it's like Latinx.
	Most Latinos are like, what the heck are you talking about?
	Yeah, uh, so the so yeah, that there's great opportunity present, and it may be expanded because the Supreme Court took not one but two cases that challenge the Humphrey executor precedent, uh, both in the FTC and the Federal Reserve context.
	And now they didn't have the guts to get Lisa Cook fired now and allowed the stay.
	They said they were they they didn't allow the stay, they just said we're delaying our ruling on the stay.
	It was like that's the same thing as a denial, but that tells me that there's some battles behind the scenes about how that's gonna flesh out.
	Also, even SCOTUS uh is scared and intimidated by the Federal Reserve.
	Gives you an idea of these central banksters uh that that run our world.
	But the but those are uh a group of a bunch of Supreme Court cases that are uh big this week, that uh the that the Supreme Court term now fully formally starts, and that uh we've got some big cases they already taken that will decide a lot of big issues in the upcoming term.
	But how the pres how they interpret Humphreys executor, because the Humphreys executor stands for the principle that you can exclude or exempt some people from being fired by the president of the United States, even though they're in the executive branch.
	If you were to say no, no law can restrict that, that he can always constitutionally must have the power to fire them at will, that has impact on all these other cases as well.
	Well, so but even so um the Federal Reserve Lisa Cook's case was not even firing at will, it was it was firing for cause.
	And what drives me motz is that they were saying the unsubstantiated allegations of well, this would might have been in an article somewhere.
	That's the favorite media thing to say.
	Unsubstantiated without evidence.
	There's evidence.
	And the reason they say that is because now without evidence is more problematic.
	Without evidence could be libel, whereas unsubstantiated is probably a pure statement of opinion.
	But if if you know Queen uh of the kooks, Candace Owens, uh, should really learn how to use those kind of words.
	I mean, she thinks by framing assertive statements as questions, like when did you stop eating your wife?
	I'm just asking a question.
	No, no, no, you're not.
	The uh so learn how to use these phrase media is is the is the master uh of libel uh by innuendo, by inference, by disguising it as opinion.
	Uh so you use unsubstantiate because that's kind of an opinion.
	How do you say something substantiated or not?
	Whereas if when you say something without evidence, that's an evidentiary statement, because either there's something that's evidence or not, and usually there is.
	So that could be suable as libel, uh, for those that uh don't necessarily understand the difference.
	But what they'll say is it wasn't evidence induced in a trial, therefore it's not technically evidence, it's merely allegations outside the court.
	The the thing is so Humphrey's executor, Robert.
	I mean, I look, I it's new to me.
	I never heard the term until it came up now.
	Um it's exactly it's a Supreme Court decision ruled the U.S. Constitution uh allows Congress to enact laws limiting the president's ability to fire executive officials.
	Okay, so limiting his ability to fire them at will, but not for cause, I presume.
	Uh so he says we we hire them and they can no longer be fired at as as though they were at will employment.
	Um am I wrong?
	I mean, that's been ratified by the Supreme Court.
	So what is different now, not in the Lisa Cook case, but in the other one, uh, where there's firing not for cause, but because the president says I can do it, that they they are I they're employed at my leisure.
	How does that not violate the Humphreys executor ruling?
	Well, the real backstory is that the Supreme Court when FDR first got in, was it with you know the four horsemen as they were called and so forth, were at war with FDR and the New Deal.
	And the and then FDR said, well, maybe I'll you know stick another 10 justices up there, and they they wussed out and uh capitulated and gave in to them, but not before the Humphreys executive decision was given.
	So that's the context in which that decision was given.
	The excuse.
	So what uh Roosevelt said is look, I'm the president of the United States.
	You can't put four cause limits on who I can fire as part of the executive branch.
	That's Congress usurping executive branch power.
	They're not given any executive branch power.
	So that I have to have be able to fire at will, period.
	If they have any executive duties within the meaning of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
	So what the Supreme Court has been slowly doing, Scalia was a harsh critic of Humphrey's executor.
	Thomas has been doubtful about it, Gorsuch has expressed doubts about it.
	Olido has expressed doubts about it, even Roberts has expressed doubts about it.
	What they've been doing is over the last decade or so is they've been limiting it more and more.
	And I think this is where they're going to go.
	What they're going to say is Humphreys executor only relates to a very unique set of facts, where the agency is a not has zero, zero executive powers, because there's language in the decision in the Humphreys executive decision that says that.
	They said, Oh, this is a really unusual agency that Congress created.
	It's really a quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative agency that has no executive power.
	So consequently, it's not infringing on the president's executive power to limit his terminate his termination authority to uh four cause.
	However, the Federal Trade Commission clearly had in its current formation, current clearly has executive power.
	The Federal Reserve, though, cases, Lisa Cook case, is even more compelling, because there's zero doubts that the Federal Reserve has an exercises executive branch power.
	And the it's amazing.
	See all these articles and experts say, oh, the central bank must be independent, that that not in our constitution.
	You want an independent central bank, amend the Constitution of the United States because it ain't in there.
	The idea we should have an independent central bank is offensive and horrendous public policy for those that have studied it for long enough.
	No, I don't think unelected central banksters should get to dictate to us, like the corrupt uh uh moron, Jerome Powell, is currently doing in freezing up our economy and negatively impacting both the housing industry and construction and manufacturing in the United States by making it so expensive to borrow because he has such a deep case of TDS, uh, which has become more and more apparent.
	There's no objective metrics that could have predicted the what he has done uh over the past six months in refusing to lower rates when the whole world has been lowering rates.
	Uh and we see a very fragile labor economy in the United States.
	And contrary to all his bogus claims, tariffs never led to big any spike in inflation.
	Uh indeed, imported goods, the cost of imported goods on average has gone down, not up.
	If you understood how tariffs work and followed some of our shows on it, that would not surprise you.
	Uh, but that was his pretext.
	So the I think he should be able to fire Jared Jerome Powell.
	I think he's able to fire any of them.
	And that four cause should not be a constraint.
	And there, the uh Trump administration is now proposing that in both cases.
	They're saying we, and in fact, like a lot of people that were cheering, oh, look, Supreme Court didn't uh let Lisa Cook get fired right away.
	The most likely reason is because the Supreme Court is planning on saying he could fire her without cause.
	That's where I think they're gonna go.
	They're gonna say Humphreys executor, which was always an A-Wall decision from constitutional history in Anchorage, is very limited to a highly unusual set of facts that only applies to those agencies that have no executive power at all.
	And what that and that is a bad decision that those of us that believe in the constitution that believe we, the American people, should decide how our money is spent, how the executive branch operates through our elected representative, not a permanent bureaucracy, not a permanent administrative state.
	Uh, so as a matter of public policy, have always thought it was good.
	But if you believe in constitutional democracy, if you believe in a constitutional republic, then Humphrey's executor was always able and has been misapplied in too many other contexts.
	And the Congress has abused misused and abused its power by just taking that decision to extend and expand and extend and expand who they could limit for termination.
	And now, just to make this make sense for it, just clicked for me as the Canadian.
	When you say no executive powers, you're basically mean like the judicial when they get appointed, the executive can't fire them.
	When legislative, when they get elected, the president can't fire them or kick them off of committees.
	Okay, so I and if it's part of the executive, it's within the purview of the president, and he can do whatever the hell he wants because it's his executive branch.
	Exactly.
	And that would mean Trump could fire all the people at the Federal Reserve.
	That by itself would be a beautiful, beautiful day.
	The uh as soon as that decision comes down, he said uh shit can Powell.
	The is to send them over to Europe.
	You know, they're all all idiots over there, as we'll be talking about with the Duran on Wednesday, uh the in covering the globe.
	Uh and you know, they come from Europe, uh have long histories, both of them, uh, in terms of you know, their their family histories are deeply embedded in the European diplomatic structure and political power.
	Uh, but the uh we have idiots that look like the people running the EU in NATO.
	Uh, you know, so the these nutmers like all the oh, the Ruskies are sending drones, and it turns out it's some local amateur German, the Russians with attitude who we interviewed predicted this.
	He said it's probably some kid who's like, this is a perfect time to put some have some fun with my drones and make him think that the Ruskies are coming.
	And that's what it turned out to be.
	It's like some Germans like I'll send this over the airport.
	This will be fun.
	The uh that's all that nonsense was.
	Uh, but the it would be a huge impact of decision, and it goes all the way down.
	Because if you can't limit for cause, then you can't limit for cause, can you?
	Uh it means everybody could be terminable at will, and that's the way our constitution intended it to be.
	Robert, uh, I don't ordinarily do it when you're on screen, but I must today because I have we have to do the third sponsor, which is another big one that is working with Rumble comet, by the way.
	So here.
	Oh, yeah, this is the big uh AI uh integrate its web browser with a whole bunch of cool stuff.
	Here, which um which branches of government, this was a stupid way to ask it, but and this is not making full use of it of uh which branches of government are not executive.
	And let's see if it even picks it up with my uh fat fingers, the typos.
	There you go.
	It gives you the answer.
	This is sort of what clicked it for me.
	But by the way, so if uh uh I have to talk about perplexity because my my father has been using perplexity forever, and now they've got a search engine so you can get away from Google and you can use Comet.
	I can't see the screen anymore.
	Uh so let me ask you something.
	How much time do you spend every day on a web browser?
	How much time do you spend clicking around online, searching, scrolling, typing, endless tabs?
	A lot, if you're anything like me.
	There's a new AI web browser perplexity called Comet, and it's completely changing the way you're able to interact with your browser.
	Using comet feels like you have your own personal assistant living in your web browser that can actually do things for you across the internet, like do things, not just answer questions as we've all been accustomed to using AI.
	You can ask Comet to handle tasks, and it literally clicks, types, searches, and scrolls just like you would, and things get done in the background while you go about your day.
	Comet can shop for you, make reservations, book travel, summarize articles and videos.
	It can, and I did use it for this, it can summarize itineraries, the best way to do something.
	Um, and it's amazing.
	Uh so go to the website here.
	It's amazing.
	Download Perplexity's new AI web browser comment by heading over to it's in the link.
	It's PPLX.ai forward slash viva.
	PPLX, Papa Papa Lima X-ray dot AI forward slash viva.
	Let your browser work for you.
	Plus, right now, when you download comet, you get a month of Rumble premium for free.
	Uh it's amazing, it is it is objectively amazing.
	I think some people might find this level of intelligence to be a little scary.
	Uh, but uh you know, adds to calendars, you won't forget dates, you won't forget uh uh meetings.
	I'm gonna add our uh our uh Duran Wednesday, so I won't forget.
	It's in the description, people.
	Uh yeah, you can integrate into Rumble's search capacity and a bunch of other stuff.
	So, like the future of Rumble is very much integrated into you're gonna see them unleash tethers integration with Rumble, which is the whole crypto world, and integrate the new AI uh web search world within Rumble's uh sort of operating system.
	So uh proffers uh great promise uh for Rumble uh going towards and they're gonna integrate crypto transactions with a crypto wallet in Rumble so you can get tipped paid, whatever in crypto.
	It's good, it's it's amazing, and it's going to be the way you protect yourself against tyrannical governments like what we see up in Canada and under Biden, not under Trump.
	But Robert, uh let's see.
	Speaking of that, three other Supreme Court cases, uh big ones that they're gonna bring up, but we can go in any order.
	Well, let's because I say, speaking of the tyrannical governments, let's speak to what people are calling the authoritarian regime of regime of Donald Trump, where they're pulling visas uh based on speech.
	Although I, you know, this is the problem with uh Mahmoud Khalil.
	I, you know, when I finally found the clear, you know, the most damning evidence of what he his speech was, it it bordered on a little bit more than speech, but there wasn't you know overt action.
	They pulled the visas of Mahmoud Khalil and basically anybody who criticized Israel or defended Hamas with words.
	Uh, and it got in front of a judge, a Reagan, it's a Reagan judge, right?
	Uh, I think in this case.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Old school Reagan judge up in Boston, I believe.
	And the judge said it was unconstitutional as per the facts of this case.
	And whether or not you agree with the decision, you you can't really say that the decision itself is wildly unwarranted, unjustified by the evidence, because when you had doxing websites from which the administration was going and finding people to pull their visas based on, you know, in most cases, was nothing more than I say speech.
	And I say speech, hold on.
	Let me can we give um what's his face?
	I know we did we've we've taken many, many steaming dumps on him.
	But Douglas Murray said something that actually kind of makes sense, Robert.
	If I may play this.
	I do not want to live in a country with a mass supporters.
	I want them deported.
	I want them chucked out.
	Simple.
	And I will do everything I can to ensure that happens.
	Uh, I'm fed up, by the way, of the centrist dad hang hand ringing era, where people say, Oh, but might it be against our liberal values and might our liberalism.
	I'm not as interested in that as I am in Britain remaining Britain.
	I am much more interested in that.
	At every time of national emergency in our nation's history, we gave something up to survive.
	And now we should beat in the Napoleonic Well.
	Hold on, pause here.
	Uh now I can steel man the rebuttal to his uh steel manning right here, because it's a compelling argument.
	You know the the joke is uh a capitalist will sell the communists the rope with which the communist will hang the capitalist.
	And when you allow free speech to the point where it's being used to actively undermine democracy, uh in the meaningful sense, like actually support terrorism, even though it's just words, um you are facilitating your own demise.
	The flip side to that is at every war, at every crisis, we've given something up.
	Yeah, like after 9-11, we gave up freedom for the Patriot Act.
	And that was then used to spy on presidential candidates and their campaign.
	During the crisis of COVID, we gave up everything, and you don't get it all back.
	And so the question, you know, Douglas Murray saying, we're gonna give up a little bit of freedom of speech to protect against the people that want to destroy us.
	And I'm not so worried about what the next administration is going to do with that.
	Well, I am, and I would be.
	And you know, we said it when they were pulling the visas of Khalil, and you said, what happens if Kamala Harris wins and then pulls Viva's visa because he was defending the Jan Sixers, and they consider that to be defending insurrection.
	And so uh it's not a self-interested reason for which I asked some questions, you know, was a little bit more stringent in the intellectual process of ratifying or contrary, you know, uh undermining criticizing that decision, but you can see where it goes.
	And it's not just this clear-cut as saying, in every crisis, you give up certain things to ensure your own survival.
	And then sometimes those things are used against you in the future.
	So in the Reagan uh appointed judge decision, fleshed out, thoroughly fleshed out that this was content-driven reprisals from the government as relates to speech and not action.
	You want to take it from there?
	Correct.
	Yeah, there's two big clarifications.
	I generally find uh the war horde Douglas Murray's opinions kind of kind of queer, personally.
	But the uh uh, so uh as to the so two important points.
	The the court's decision does not apply at all to illegal aliens, does not apply at all.
	Court made that point repeatedly that it only applies to those that are legally present here, legally present.
	So illegal aliens are not protected by this decision at all.
	There's been some confusion about that.
	If you're legally present here, as I think, you know, I sometimes assume that everybody's watched all of our episodes since we got about what, 289 of them that that might be a little tricky.
	The uh almost up to 300, because I know I misnumbered a few of them.
	So let's just say a little under 300.
	Exactly.
	So the Harry Bridges case, uh, Harry Bridges, famous labor activist, used to be a commie uh before he came over here in the 20s and 30s.
	Uh, but you know, one of the you know great labor leader, old school, you know, port worker, labor leader kind of guys.
	Uh, I kind of liked him because he told a judge to go, which I I kind of appreciated.
	The uh uh, you know, at least spiritually speaking, you might say.
	The uh the Supreme Court in a sequence of decisions concerning bridges, they kept coming after him.
	They they were clearly trying to deport him because of his advocacy, because of his speech, because he was an effective labor union organizer.
	That's why they were coming after him, not because uh of anything else.
	In the Supreme Court repeatedly reiterated anybody legally present in the country, legally present in the country, is pretty the way to think of it's like somebody's in your house.
	Somebody breaks in your house, you can kick them out.
	It doesn't matter if the reason you're kicking them out is they got blue hair, or you just don't want them there.
	On the other hand, if you invite somebody in as your guest under certain rules and expectations, then you can't just kick them out other than uh unless it complies with the rules and expectations by which they became a guest in your home.
	So, same I same sort of broad principle.
	Just so that nobody misphrases that.
	You say you invite someone over for dinner, you can't just kick them up mid dinner.
	Everyone's gonna say you can.
	When you enter into a contract with a tenant, for example, renting a room, you can't just kick them out because you're certain expectations.
	Like let's say you have a guy, you're I mean, I you're at a restaurant, you're an invited guest, you have a reservation, you pay things.
	Things like that.
	Think of it in sort of broadly those principles that the rules change between whether someone broke into your house or someone was an invited guest of your house under certain limitations.
	And once if someone is legally present in the country, then you what the Supreme Court established almost a century ago in the bridges cases, is that you uh I know Robert Gave had some curiosity about this.
	You don't have to be a citizen to get constitutional protection.
	You just have to be legally present in the country.
	Now, if you are a citizen, you have much greater protection from the state than someone who is not, but that does not mean you have none if you're not a citizen.
	So if you're legally present here as effectively an invited guest, if you will, then you have First Amendment protection.
	That you're the content of your speech cannot be the basis of punishment.
	Another important difference here, whenever illegals are getting kicked out, it is not considered punishment.
	It is considered removing someone who's not legally present in the country to begin with.
	So they had no legal right to be here.
	So consequently, they have no legal right to object to their removal, like someone breaking into your home.
	Whereas an invited guest has a right to object, and it is considered punishment for them because there is some degree, though less than a citizen, expectation of protection from deportation.
	So the court's decision on the law, that part is correct.
	The Supreme Court's crystal clear, non-citizens, if they're legally present here, have First Amendment rights, and the federal government or no government can punish them, and deportation is and re-cerevocation is in that that context considered punishment based on the content of their speech.
	Now that goes to the evidentiary aspects, where there's some questions and controversy.
	Judges ruling is a little weird because somebody sent him some note and he decided to attach the note to the top of the opinion, which is totally wacky, and he's got a lot of language towards the end, where he's pretending he's like Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan all wrapped up into one.
	You know, you you get a little bit of a dementia vibe, to be honest with you, from some aspects of the decision.
	But putting that aside, there is a massive evidence that we have been critical of that has been building.
	We said from the get-go, if you don't want terror supporters here, target terror supporters, material support of terrorism by action.
	There's a whole bunch of things that that encompasses.
	The it doesn't encompass pure speech, but it encompasses other actions and activities.
	Like in the case of the famous New York case, there was evidence that he was conspiring to help break into university facilities to do illegal activities in the name of his uh globalize the intifada.
	The uh, but you know, like the tough student, it turned out it was just the editorial.
	And then it's even worse.
	The evidence the government came with, basically, they let Israel advocates go in there and give them a script of all the anti-Israel people they wanted out of the country.
	And they were using their private list, not a government created list, their private list to go after everybody.
	And it was 80% speech driven.
	I mean, I gotta give my apologies to Glenn Greenwald.
	I thought Greenwald was on the wrong track when he was saying this was happening.
	Turns out he was dead right.
	And we said from the get-go, tar people that are violent, people that do illegal activity.
	By golly, the worst actors all do this.
	So you it's not like it's that hard.
	You just go through a list of who did illegal activities, who's broken a rule, broken a regulation, broken a restriction, provided material support for terrorism, deal with them.
	Also, don't limit it.
	Don't because by the way, what the evidence was, this was all limited to Israel issues.
	They were not targeting Antifa supporters, for example, which is drives me insane.
	The Antifa, global support for a material terrorist organization, is a much greater threat than some tough student complaining about Israel in a letter to the student newspaper for crying out loud.
	So the reality is the parts of the pro-Israel operation, which is now bought off through Larry Ellison, bought off TikTok.
	Not a big fan of the whole Palantur thing, and definitely not a fan of Larry Ellison's growing influence.
	Just listen to some of the crazy stuff that I used to live down the street from Ellison in Malibu.
	That dude was always a nut.
	His kid's a nut.
	And so they're bringing in Barry Weiss to run CBS.
	And you know, Mark Robera thing apparently thought Barry Weiss was part of the I Barry Weiss has been a neocon deep state establishment hack for forever.
	Going back to her New York Times days.
	She's just culturally moderate because she saw woke was so unpopular that she could create her own mojo by being at least not nuts.
	You know, basically, she's Douglas Murray as a as a woman.
	She's the American woman version of Douglas Murray.
	Listen to the way she would defame and libel Tulsi Gabbard years ago on Joe Rogan.
	She's one of the dumbest.
	I had to deal with her in it in a in a couple of cases, and I was like, man, it's this chick dumb.
	Uh now she's gonna run CBS News.
	No, no, no.
	And Ellison now owns TikTok.
	I I uh I reposted her statements about uh Tulsi Gabbard, and uh everybody thought they were contemporaneous.
	And I said, I was highlighting the fact that it's the way the liberal mind works, using terms that they don't understand, like she's like, I don't really know what these words mean, but Tulsi Cameron's a Russian asset.
	I was like, that personifies the liberal mind, and the liberal mind doesn't change over time.
	I think there was a recent example, sorry.
	Oh, exactly.
	And so now Ellison's bought.
	By the way, listen to some of the stuff uh Ellison says.
	Ellison wants to create the digital control grid.
	It's just like he and Bill Gates are completely simpatico on this.
	People don't understand it.
	Think, oh, it's great, Larry Ellison, but you know, I need to no, no, no.
	Barry Weiss, bad news.
	Larry Ellison, I mean, I get Mark Robert's point that almost anything is an improvement at CBS, the corporate broadcasting propaganda station.
	Don't disagree with him there.
	But Barry Weiss is nothing to celebrate.
	The criticisms of her cross it's not just Israel, it's tons of other things involving Weiss.
	So the uh, but this is what's happened.
	The the Israeli lobby hijacked this part of the Trump administration's visa revocation policy, completely sabotaging it.
	So something that should have been targeted, and we said to him, people will attack us.
	Go back and look.
	We said over and over and over again, don't focus on speech, focus on conduct, focus on conduct.
	Don't limit it to Israel, focus it on all the terror supporters around.
	It was my it's well, I took shit for, and everybody's calling me a self-hating Jew.
	Like, I was saying, no, what did Mahmoud Khalil?
	What did he do?
	What's the worst evidence where he said, when we uh what did he say, when we uh not protested, but when we basically talk about we occupied it's like, okay, well, there you might have an admission of action.
	Uh, but going after people for speech, it it is counterproductive because it's actually only going to exacerbate anti-Semitic sentiment, as I believe it has.
	And so, if that was the goal, now I appreciate what Douglas Murray is saying, you don't want to live, you don't want uh savages who promote and tolerate violence living among you, whether it's Hamas or whether it's people reveling in the world.
	I focus on being who materially support violence and engage in violence and other criminality.
	Because the worst of this, not only that, you don't limit it to Israel.
	The the our greatest threat is not Palestinian supporters.
	Our greatest threat is Antifa.
	And it's been Antifa now for a better part of a decade.
	And instead, they didn't look at that at all.
	They presented no evidence to the judge that that was a concern at all.
	They literally were going to Israeli lobby organizations.
	And by the way, Larry Ellison was doing, they were using Larry Ellison to pre-screen whether Rubio could become Secretary of State to pre-screen who could get approved in the in the Trump administration.
	Well, why why Larry Ellison has it has has never been MAGA?
	Well, why are we giving that guy all this power?
	Give me a break.
	The uh so and now he's gonna have Paramount, so he's gonna have a bunch of movie control, TV control with TikTok control.
	I don't like where this is going at all.
	He's out there saying, hey, we're gonna spy on you and we're gonna spy on you so much that you're gonna want to self-censor.
	He's taking you know Bentham's panopticon and made it a manifest reality.
	That's his goal.
	This guy's an imminent, real clear and pre.
	He's a much more clear and present danger to the American constitutional republic than the Republic of Venezuela is, that's for darn sure.
	Uh, the where we're apparently planning on overthrowing anytime soon.
	So the uh, but it was this the decision.
	I know I put it out, I said unpopular take, and I started getting all the bashing.
	But it is I'm hey, I'm a First Amendment purist, as the uh the meme that's out there, Barnes sipping for the constitution for a quarter century.
	That's the only thing I simp for.
	And the first amendment to the United States made this clear, the Trump administration violated it, and the court's decision is correct.
	And so go back, restart from the beginning and make this a proper visa revocation policy about people who materially support terror, regardless of where that terror is.
	And then we can get a lot of these bums out.
	Uh we were talking about it at the time also that depending on your legal status, there are different levels of constitutional protections.
	So a green cardholder who's been lawfully admitted to the country, no green cardholders, they can actually own firearms as well.
	But you know, you have different levels depending on your legal status in the country.
	And once they've let you in on a green card, you have First Amendment rights, whether you like it or not.
	Now, uh and now, whether or not I don't want the government in the business of controlling and suspending speech anywhere in the world to be.
	Well, and no, and and and what the argument was at the time was whether or not he made false statements in his applications that they could then revoke the the the uh vision that would have been fair game.
	But again, they shouldn't have started out with the list that came from the uh Israeli wish list of people we don't want in your country.
	That should not have been the origin source.
	Uh that was I I say it out loud, and I I know I uh it makes me feel nice when people agree with it, but you you want to exacerbate anti-Semitic sentiment.
	What's the best way to do it?
	It would be to basically tell people that you can't criticize a country, that you can't criticize policy.
	If you want to, if you want to, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Alleviate anti-Semitic sentiment, you would let them have the discussions.
	And to the extent here, how you know, like my debate with Nick Fuentes, where Nick Fuentes explains how he would like Hamas to have nuclear weapons instead of Israel.
	Uh, and then you're like, oh, I don't know if I want to be part of that side of the aisle.
	The uh so you know, someone was asking in the chat that I supported the potential visa revocation of the uh gentleman in New York.
	Yes, based on things other than speech.
	That's what I said, focus on things other than speech.
	What I was unsettled by, and what is now been proven in court, according to the judge, uh, is that the that the basis by which he was targeted to begin with came up from a content-driven speech list.
	That never should have happened.
	They should have had a whole different protocol.
	I had hoped that they did.
	Turns out I was wrong, unfortunately.
	That the the protocol should have been let's look at everybody who's provided material support for a terrorist organization.
	And some of and and that can take the form of conduct and actions that they may want to disguise as speech, but isn't speech.
	I mean, like for example, if you target a Jewish student and keep putting in their face a picture of globalize the intifada with Hamas people on uh you know coming in on October 7th, that is conduct because it starts being harassing and stalking and things of this nature.
	That's what we articulated at the time.
	We said find the material evidence of material support for a terror organization or other activity that could constitute illicit illegal behavior, like we found he had apparently supported breaking into university facilities and was connected to an organization that was doing so.
	That's a crime, that's illegal, that's grounds for visa revocation.
	What I didn't know is that the whole reason why he showed up on the list in the first place was because Israel gave him a I was curious when they, you know, they they blackbagged the Tufts uh girl.
	Remember, they they blackbagged her off the street and took her in, you know, all that jazz.
	Uh, and now it turns out is a it was an Israeli organization that they just said, please, you know, it's like it looks bad for the Trump administration, it's bad policy, but they've undermined it themselves.
	I mean that they screwed it up themselves.
	It's all on them.
	And you can argue with whether or not the judge is such a you know a defective judge that you can question the evidentiary basis of the file, but operating on what the judge accepted as evidence, do you then have to come to the conclusions of the bottom?
	I mean, it was 140, 150 page opinion.
	Yeah, but sometimes to me that that's like sort of the um the the drown them out with crap so that nobody can follow the decision.
	But there was some compelling arguments, and whether or not in Khalil's case, they could have made a a better argument for his actions and not just his words.
	A couple of the cases of the V op ed one.
	Yeah, and I tell you, it's like it is inexcusable, and I could I was shocked to discover the source origin, which I mean uh the the that basically it was this pro-Israeli organization said, here's our list, here's the people to go after it.
	I was like, No, what you please please tell me that wasn't the case, and yet it's all over the case in The record.
	And what better way to you know, what better way to quell certain concerns as to who uh dictates policy in America?
	Robert, okay, hold on.
	Before we get into the next stuff here, because I'm gonna fall well behind here.
	Let's read a few of the tips over here.
	This is Schnookham's Barnes brief on and IRS.
	Any update on the topic of IRS trying to tax unrealized income.
	Uh basically kind of what they're doing.
	We'll get to that IRS game.
	Uh uh link in the Barnes brief for those that don't know.
	Uh at the Viva Barnes Law dot locals.com.
	Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays, we try to put out a Barnes brief that has a lot of curated content of uh important information and links and a lot of other information, and that was part of it.
	Uh, we got uh from Pasha Moyer.
	I know you claimed copyright on this, just doing it for fun.
	I've already sent it off to the merch guy.
	Thank you very much, Pasha.
	Susie C, thank you.
	Ten bucks.
	There's another bird with a badly swollen leg that can barely walk, says F. Shauton.
	Uh we're gonna get criminal investigators involved in this.
	This is the ostra stuff.
	I don't know.
	Trump plays the Maria of the Marhache band.
	Uh that was from Ithaca 37 Kato.
	Let's just say for argument's sake that Scotus rules Trump can't fire executive branch employees, then who does that power go to?
	They would be unfirable.
	They would basically be like like a point of disaster.
	It would be the permanent approval of the administrative state, and we would no longer have a democratically controlled constitutional republic.
	And that is uh effectively exactly what they want.
	Where's my problem here?
	Oh, they uh okay.
	Here we go.
	Sorry, I can't couldn't find these over on Rumble.
	Uh, let me go all the way down to the bottom here.
	Ugh, I'll go fast.
	Make sure to buy copium poppies music and sub everywhere.
	Oh, this is Snake Coil Entertainment.
	We just reached 500 subs.
	Check them out.
	I think my face might be covering this.
	Otherwise, Chuck Schumer will force feed you raw hamburger with craft singles.
	Copium poppies.
	The remanded says, Have you heard of the 2010 sheep farmer Montana Jones, who had her sheep slaughtered, having all tested negative for uh, I guess I mean scabies, maybe or scrapies.
	Similar mandate and orders by the CFIA.
	I've detailed it and sent it to you.
	Thank you very much for the remanded.
	And I people DM me and I don't always get back remanded.
	I've seen your DMs, but I it's been a uh one hell of a weekend.
	Chuck Schumer will force read you this.
	Okay, we saw that one.
	One man's terrorist says another man's barbecued ribs, deport Antifa, and their sympathizers to Haiti.
	When I I watched this documentary about uh crossing the Darien Gap and uh what Haiti is one hell of a failed country.
	That's wild.
	Joined your locals when Apple Pay became an option, wanted to do a tip question during the bourbon, but when I went to get tokens, Apple Pay wasn't an option.
	Can you check if it's an oversight by locals?
	Absolutely.
	It's probably because uh the reason why you have to go through and get tokens, and it usually a different mechanism is Apple Pay wants to take 30%.
	Oh, that's true.
	Okay.
	Um they might, I think they might not have done it for that reason.
	I'll ask in any event.
	Snake coil and tell me says, make sure to buy some built on built.
	I'm not reading that.
	Thank you very much.
	And we're gonna get to build on a second.
	Something happened as a reaction to digital ID and government's fingers on bank accounts.
	Physical silver value has gone up 25% in the last 60 days.
	It's it's wild.
	I mean, silver's always been the discount, you know, the poor man's gold, but it's been going up.
	Yeah, gold, silver, bitcoin, going to the moon.
	Why do we still have illegals in the country?
	Aren't GOP implicitly admitting they don't plan to get rid of the illegals?
	They're doing as much of a job as they can to get out the illegal.
	Yeah, I mean, Trump is making progress, but yeah, you no question, the big corporate donors want all the illegals here that they can.
	So it's a on the right and the left.
	They want them for cheap labor.
	That's why they had Haitian, you know, TPS's up in uh Springfield, Ohio.
	King of Bill Tong says, I'd like to thank everyone for the awesome support you showed us after the storm hit.
	We will keep serving you equally online and in soon in store after we reopen in Sunset, Texas Booya.
	Code Barnes for 10% off checkout, uh King of Bill Tong.
	This would be a good beef turkey, but better.
	It's amazing.
	Uh, this would be a good opportunity to audit the Fed and end the Fed.
	Go back, sound money and commodities.
	Congress is supposed to be coin money.
	Oh, that Robert, I heard they were talking about putting Trump on the on a one dollar coin.
	That would be the best thing ever.
	Oh, legally, somebody asked, uh, they they can't.
	Right now, Congress prohibits any live person from being identified on any currency or uh so that's the limitation.
	So they were trying to create a Trump coin, but that would not be a legally issued tender by the now.
	Maybe they have some other intention of use, but they can't actually legally issue it right now under uh Congress.
	Oh okay, that that's that's a shame.
	Um hold on, where did the screen go?
	Uh Math test, if Viva walks into Kitchen, slips on something and bangs his head.
	For how many days will Winston need potty training?
	Crash prone.
	The dogs have been uh on a bad uh a bad leak uh week of leak.
	They've been peeing all over the place.
	Uh Randy Edwards says Elk versus Wilkins cannot impose citizenship echoed by 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe.
	No birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children.
	We'll get to that.
	Yeah, we're gonna get to that.
	Engage to says if uh when I saw the video of Khalil being arrested and his wife crying, I needed I needed a wet nap to engage you.
	Snake coil entertainment.
	The ADL provided material support to terrorism by listing anti anti-antifa imagery as hate summer.
	Absolutely.
	Not pure speech.
	Web hosting costs money, ADL needs to be shut down.
	I agree.
	What does Barnes think about Todd Blanche, Kimmy?
	I can tell you what he does.
	He doesn't he doesn't trust white shoe.
	I forget what the expression is.
	Yeah, yeah.
	White shoe, corporate lawyer with long-standing democratic ties, went to Brooklyn Law School, worked his way into the Southern District of New York, parlay that into representing elite, uh working at some of the most elite silk stocking corporate firms in the entire nation in New York City in criminal defense.
	was a registered Democrat until like a year ago, and saw an opportunity with Trump.
	He's like, oh, this guy needs criminal defense representation in New York.
	And he's got a lot of money.
	So he started his own law firm, was only to represent him, and he's parlayed that into being the deputy attorney general.
	And so Matt Gates and Mike Blant Mike Davis and all the people who want to curry favor the administration, they're not going to be honest with people that are untrustworthy.
	Do I trust Todd Blanch?
	No, I have zero trust in Todd Blanche.
	And Mike Davis can keep pitching and promising he's really up to something great.
	I don't buy it, I don't believe it.
	I uh, you know, if I'm proven wrong, I'll be the first to fully and thoroughly and completely in a fish called Wanda style, apologize uh to Todd Blanch.
	But right now I'm unconvinced and unpersuaded uh that he is much of an advocate, and the Epstein handling was a disaster, and he his forensic fingerprints are all over that.
	Uh okay, I'm gonna read this one and then what is Barnes think the percentage of Canadians would be approved for asylum?
	The good the good ones, hopefully.
	No, Viva would know that.
	What do you think about the third?
	I I know that a lot of people are talking about it, and I know that uh look uh I I'm here, but some Canadians who are being persecuted in Canada probably need to claim asylum sooner than later.
	You're rumbling Alberta.
	Well, you know, don't invade Venezuela, invade Canada, take Alberta, deport everybody to Britain into commie.
	Your rumble rant reading thing is weird.
	We are copium poppies.
	Snake coil entertainment is our account, not our channel.
	We rant under our channel name.
	Rumble needs to allow users to merge channels with account.
	I'll screenshot that because I don't understand a word you just said, sir.
	I'm joking, I do.
	I'll send it off to the team.
	Okay, Robert.
	Uh we got a couple of other big cases that's go to scotus.
	Uh remember we pointed out these cases where after the Supreme Court specifically said the president can reverse temporary protected status for tons of illegals who are led in the country under Biden, that that's what the words temporary protected status mean, that complete discretion was vested in the secretary and secretary nomad and in the president Trump.
	And then a bunch of courts just ignored it, including the Ninth Circuit.
	Ninth Circuit was like, well, we're not sure that's what the Supreme Court meant.
	Well, you talk there's smackdowns and then there's smackdowns.
	The Supreme Court in like two sentences said what we said before still stands.
	Case reversed.
	Injunction stayed.
	So uh good ruling on that context.
	Yeah, well, except Robert, we've seen it with Bruin.
	We've seen it with um the lower courts don't care, and they keep pushing it back up.
	The Supreme Court pushes it back down and they'll push it back up again.
	So you'll get another activist judge.
	Uh, I don't know in what context it would occur.
	Uh, declare that you know he can't do it, and then we'll have this cycle all over again.
	But in in the meantime, what when they eliminate the TPS for for these um uh this case was Venezuelan, which is kind of interesting because the we're someone invading Venezuela.
	Why don't we just send back all the TDA members?
	Let's just do that instead.
	Merry Christmas, Caracas.
	You know, the uh they sent him up here to begin with instead of invading, you know, the instead of creating the words banana republic literally originate from the United States government constantly intervening in Central America on behalf of the United Fruit Company to control the banana supply.
	So I mean that's where it comes from.
	And yet we're thinking about it again.
	But one of the big immigration cases before the Supreme Court is Supreme Court has taken, uh, and it looks like they're gonna take a bunch of them combined, birthright citizenship cases, and they're finally, I think, going to have to address that.
	Now, they still, in all these cases, could skip that by saying, well, there's not third-party standing, associational standing for the state, so you couldn't issue a universal injunction, or there's not class action basis here, so you couldn't issue a Universal injunction and just not allow universal injunctions.
	And then each person would have to sue on their own, on their own, on their own, knowing that that would be greatly constraining on the ability to enforce by judicial fiat, birthright citizenship.
	But they may decide the question itself.
	Now I have my views about what is likely to happen, but the uh the Trump administration, for those that don't know, has its executive order only applies prospectively.
	Does not see the political mistake would have been to try to apply it retroactively.
	Trump administration is not doing it.
	It's only prospectively.
	It was saying from 30 days after the issuance of the executive order, the only people who will be recognized as having a birthright of citizenship to the United States will be those whose parents are politically domiciled in the United States, which uh they don't have to be citizens, but they have to be politically domiciled in the United States, which means they're legally present here and they have an intent to stay here.
	And then if they don't have both, uh then that is not considered, and that follows a an interpretation as we went into a great detail with Professor John Eastman, who made the most persuasive case in my opinion on that side.
	No, that's going to be before the Supreme Court.
	Looks like they're going to decide birthright citizenship this term.
	It was actually the time where someone had convinced me that someone presented a better argument than you did, Robert.
	And when we had Eastman on, um, it was an amazing uh discussion about birthright citizenship and how under the jurisdiction thereof is the key term to determine that when someone comes in illegally, they have not uh basically agreed to be under the jurisdiction of for the purposes of birthright citizenship, such that the children of those illegals should not be citizens any more than the children of diplomats, any more than the children's of all children of occupying forces.
	But you you you raise a good question.
	Are they going to just adjudicate, take the easy way out?
	What is the pressing, the pressing national concern would be the executive order on a prospective basis to adjudicate on this question to determine the validity of the executive order instead of just kicking the can down the road because it would come back, it would come back immediately because there will be people who are going to be affected by this executive order, which will still remain an executive order.
	Yeah, and two date, I don't even think there's been a single dissenting judge.
	All the federal courts have said absolutely you have a right to birthright citizenship, unless you're the son or daughter of an ambassador, uh, part of an invading army uh or uh an untaxed Indian.
	Uh so that they the key is under the 14th Amendment, the words subject to the jurisdiction.
	Uh, what does that mean?
	The courts have tried to limit that to the principle of just so lie, the old principle that would they court uh that the government has jurisdiction over you simply by the presence, your presence in their territory, their power over the land, territorial jurisdiction gives them the power over you.
	And if that exists, there's a reciprocal obligation to recognize you as a citizen in that context and capacity.
	Now, the government often wants to call somebody a citizen, even though the person doesn't want to call themselves a citizen for drafting them into armies and taxing everything they can out of them.
	Uh the so the U.S. is unique and it taxes you as citizens wherever you are in the entire world.
	Uh, there are people that didn't even know they were U.S. citizens.
	They got hit with big tax bills over the years.
	So the so it doesn't always just cut in one direction.
	But the key question, uh, the the uh what's they've taken Eastman's argument and they're really refining it.
	And so they're saying subject to the jurisdiction equals political domicile.
	And they're taking, like one of the super chats mentioned some of the cases.
	They're taking these aggregation of cases, and they're saying these were you look at the verbiage in this aggregation of cases, and what it points to is political domicile as what's subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant.
	It could not mean simply the same as territorial jurisdiction, because if it meant the same as territorial jurisdiction, then there's duplication in the statute and within the 14th Amendment.
	And so they're saying because of that, this has to have a different interpretation.
	It cannot be constricted to territorial jurisdiction definition for what's subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the birth in the citizenship by birth means.
	And they would argue that it only that the executive order precisely contors with the original intention of those who passed the amendment and the Supreme Court cases interpreting it, have language supporting that interpretation.
	So I don't think it's as done a deal as I would have thought a year ago.
	I think the way in which the executive order has been crafted is very smart uh legally.
	And the legal argument taking John Eastman's work is getting better and better developed.
	Now, personally, I wonder why I think the Trump administration should put Eastman in a significant role in some of these cases at Solicitor General's office or somewhere else, uh, because he's a unique scholar in this field and in general, uh, that the California is still trying to disbar them because that's the insanity for asserting a legal opinion.
	That's how nuts our bar has become.
	Still trying to disbar Jeffrey Clark, uh, which is outrageous uh for simply us doing his job while he was at the Justice Department and Trump's first term.
	So the uh, but I think that it's it's not, I mean, I would still say two thirds chance the Supreme Court says that birthright citizenship is very broad and applies to anybody outside of ambassadors, diplomats, and invading armies and untaxed Indians, uh, which is not really a relevant category anymore.
	Uh, but I think there's a one in three chance.
	I would have said one in ten a year ago.
	Now I think there's a one in three chance that in fact they're persuaded and say, yeah, you know what?
	This limited definition makes sense.
	Uh, and then you could reform and remedy that the problem of what's called anchor babies, people literally physically coming to the United States solely to confer citizenship on their children that are not even legally present in the United States and have no other ties of allegiance or family to the country.
	I'm just looking at the Calci market.
	The one question is will Trump's birthright citizenship order come into effect this year.
	What are the odds?
	I don't want to say, Robert, four percent.
	Oh, take it.
	Take it.
	Yeah, that's good odds.
	Uh I can much higher likely that goes up than goes down.
	Yeah, the question is, what would what would it require a determination by the court, or would it just require is it by the end of 2025?
	That's the only reason I wouldn't take it.
	If Trump's executive order citizenship comes into effect for the period of issuance and before January 1st, 2026.
	I skip that.
	All right.
	Supreme Court's not likely to get to this the case until uh the spring.
	Okay.
	Well, damn it.
	It's about to retire.
	Uh, all right.
	Well, what was the other Supreme Court decision that's uh up there?
	Oh, there's two more that they're taking up.
	One is on medical malpractice limits, and the other is attorney client conferences.
	So on attorney client conferences, so during trial, when a witness is testifying, the attorney, as I said, it's a rule of sequestration uh of sequestering the witness.
	So the you you one, you sequester any other unless you're a party to the case.
	If you're a witness to the case, you're not allowed to participate in the case or observe the case until your testimony is concluded.
	If you are a party to the case, then the only sequestration that applies is that once you start testing testifying, you're not supposed to consult with your lawyer.
	About about the content of your testimony.
	Now you could ask about other stuff.
	So this was the rule.
	This was the rule that I understood growing, you know, I I implemented it in practice.
	Whenever anyone goes on on lunch research you say, FYI, you can't talk to your lawyer about your testimony.
	You don't want him tweaking your bad answers, but you can still talk to him.
	So what the I what I what's the Supreme Court?
	The question is what happens in the Sixth Amendment context?
	What happens when it's overnight?
	And so a bunch of courts have been coming up with crazy rules that are becoming more and more restrictive.
	And then the other problem is how do you investigate whether there's been a violation of the rule?
	The only way you do that is in invading the attorney client privilege.
	Yeah, well, you can't.
	What did your attorney talk about?
	That that dot that.
	Well, or if they come back the next day and the guy, the witness unsolicited says, No, what I meant yesterday when I said this was this.
	And like, all right, did you talk to your lawyer?
	That's why.
	What that's always been okay is the other side can cross-examine on that.
	And they could you talk the now, they can't get into the content of what was said, but say, did you talk about your testimony with your lawyer?
	How long did you tell, you know, those kind of questions that they can ask that can make an inference if there's been a sudden shift.
	To me, I've always thought it was bogus.
	I mean, the the I mean, so basically what it requires you as a lawyer to do is to prep your witness with every variation that might happen.
	So you pre you you pre-do it over and over again.
	And so it's all legal as long as you do it before they start testifying.
	Okay, whatever.
	This coaching nonsense.
	You know, all that's number one.
	Problem number two is it happens all the time, and you can't prove it didn't happen.
	Prove it did happen either way.
	But to me, it's a Sixth Amendment infringement in the criminal context.
	And what happens when you're overnight, some of these courts are trying to prohibit you from even talking to your client overnight about anything in the case unrelated to the testimony.
	So it's gotten way too out of control.
	I think the Supreme Court will clarify the Sixth Amendment is so robust that there should be no rule prohibiting the attorney in a criminal case from consulting with their client even after they've testified about the subject matter of their case, and that the way to go about interrogating uh or exposing the potential risk that there's been any some sort of coaching is by cross-examination and the inherent credibility that the test that the uh testimony provides the jury that gets to always assess anyway.
	So, but the fact Supreme Court's taking it tells you that that's probably the direction they're gonna go in, but it's a big deep uh circuit split.
	It's like eight, four, it's all over the place.
	Uh, and then the other big uh Supreme Court case they took is on med mal limits.
	So you got all these procedural tricks that the uh big uh all the all the corrupt doctors in hospitals signed up for.
	I mean, I I still run into conservatives who love medical malpractice limitations.
	It's like I mean, why?
	10% of doctors commit 80% of the fraud, and they're the ones who walk.
	It's the politically honest and courageous doctors who get harassed.
	And so the all you do with all these laws is you protect the crooks and the criminals.
	That's it.
	But one of the caps and limits they imposed uh is the they impose all these like in some states, you have to go get an affidavit from an expert that you have a but before you even bring the case.
	Well, so what does that really do?
	It's gonna cost you 50 grand, 50 grand out of the gate before you can even file the case.
	You get a lot of lawyers.
	Well, you get a lot of lawyers working, not pro bono, but uh contingency, and if they cap it, then you're not gonna have a lot of lawyers who're gonna take these on.
	It's what's happening.
	80% of the lawyers who handled medical practice in the 1980s now no longer handle medical malpractice.
	I mean, I'm representing the Mennonite family in Texas, uh, whose daughter died from medical malpractice at a hospital, and they lied and said it was you know the uh due to measles and all this other nonsense.
	Uh, but you the no other lawyer would touch the case because they're like, look at the caps, you know.
	You the it's gonna cost you more to bring the case as a lawyer than you can ever recover.
	That's how ridiculous it is.
	And then they impose all these other procedural barriers.
	So what so why is this before the Supreme Court?
	Well, it's before the Supreme Court is sometimes you have diversity of citizenship.
	When you have diversity of citizenship, you get to bring these cases in federal court.
	So the question is do these state rules apply in federal court?
	And this has a broad-ranging implication because it might provide federal court, it might be a remedy in select cases where you have citizenship diversity or federal subject matter jurisdiction on some other grounds.
	If you can get the case into federal court, then these rules are really procedural rules.
	They've disguised the these substantive restraints as procedural rules.
	Well, guess what?
	Because you got to disguise these substantive restraints as procedural rules, they're considered legally procedural rules, which means they're not binding in federal court because they would undermine the federal rules of civil procedure.
	And uh for the you know, it's the old Erie doctrine.
	If it's a substantive rule, the state law applies.
	If it's a procedural rule, the federal rules of civil procedure preempt it.
	This is why a lot of anti-slap laws don't apply in federal court.
	Uh, is because it's a state uh procedural mechanism, it's a substantive tool designed to restrain speech concerning libel and other things to protect big media institutions, but it it's disguised as a procedural remedy, and because it's disguised as such, it can be legally discarded as such in federal court.
	So that too will be decided by the Supreme Court this term.
	That's just the beginning.
	Uh no, it the the there's no more group of bigger group of lazy lawyers outside of well, maybe the federal government in general, uh, than the Supreme Court of the United States.
	They will likely only take 50 or 60 cases again this year.
	These, I mean, they got four clerks of per justice.
	Yeah, nine justices, four clerks, and you can only take 50 cases.
	Yeah, I mean, come on.
	A single federal district court judge takes 10 times that in a single year, and he's got two clerks.
	So, I mean, ah, these lazy bumps, but the uh uh I think Congress should pass law making them take us more than this.
	Of course, they'll find some shenanigans to get around all that, they'll take 12 cases of the same issue, right?
	You know, that kind of garbage.
	Um, but the but at least we got some of these cases out of the gate, and these are some of the more interesting interesting ones to start the uh SCOTUS term.
	The now we get to transition into the top topic voted on the Viva Barnes Law dot locals.com.
	Craziness in Portland.
	Uh I I well, but I thought you were gonna make a joke about transitioning into the uh transitioning into trans.
	Yeah.
	Well, but uh, am I sharing the screen right now?
	Yeah.
	This is just, I had this up when you were asking about Todd Blanche.
	Um, we still don't know who signed off on that memo that had no signature.
	This is the Epstein stuff.
	And we and we do, when when people talk about distractions, we certainly aren't talking about Epstein anymore now, given what's happened, but we'll get back to it.
	Once the ostriches are saved, or God forbid, if they get slaughtered, uh, I'll be harping on that, but we'll get back to Epstein sooner than later.
	Nobody's forgotten.
	Uh Robert, okay, Portland madness.
	So Nick Sortor, someone said, Viva, he wasn't infiltrating, he was being a journalist.
	I'm I'm sort of you know being glib.
	Even he said, you know, he was trying to get in deep in bed deep to get journalism in there.
	Uh he was arrested.
	We don't yet know what happened.
	Uh, I suspect what happened is he got assaulted and shoved back or protected himself, and then they arrested all three of them, uh, or the you know, the instigators and and and Nick Sortor.
	And I made the joke in a vlog, you know, Nick Sortor's not going to Portland to pick a fight with Antifa.
	He's going there to report.
	And that in and of itself is something that's going to instigate violent reactions from basic domestic terrorists.
	I mean, that's what they are.
	So the the poop who's hit the fan.
	There was protesting outside an ICE facility in anticipation of a judge's ruling, which should be coming down on Monday, Robert, as to uh uh shoot, I forget the I forget the exact details of that case.
	Anyways, bottom line, the poop is hit the fan.
	You there was a video of did you see the video of the DHS guy spraying a uh chick in the face with pepper spray?
	I thought it was the Portland police.
	I was like, okay, look, that that looks pretty bad on its face.
	I want to have to know, you know, of the circumstances as to what she said exactly that could warrant uh point blank pepper spray in the eyes.
	Um if I may ask you there, what did you think of it?
	I mean, is it gonna is that gonna be unjustified police conduct?
	Well, we'll see.
	I mean, for those that don't know the backdrop of all of this, is basically Antifa, a global terror organization.
	Uh, has been designated a domestic terror organization by the president.
	Hopefully, the Secretary of State will soon be designating it a foreign terror organization because that's what it is, uh, founded about a century ago in Europe to commit terror on the streets in the names of under the fig leaf of uh defending against the fascists, but it was a bunch of uh violent commies, always has been.
	That's why they keep coming back when there are no fascists around to fight.
	So they have to pretend they're a fascist to fight.
	But they basically co-opted control of Portland.
	Michael Strickland, laugh at liberals, was a guy who got beat up and assaulted for simply photographing what was going on.
	When he tried to defend himself by just brandishing a gun, they tried to put Strickland in prison.
	Uh he's still fighting that case out in Portland.
	The uh Andy No, when Andy Noah was just documenting what was going on there, he was chased and violently assaulted and almost murdered.
	Uh the Antifa has been doing this now for the better part of a decade with no consequence to the local uh to uh for them because the local police, the local mayor, and the governor are all in on it.
	There are they are as closely embedded within Tifa as any of the worst Southern politicians were with the Klan at the peak of the Klan.
	Uh, the you know, the only thing you could find is comparable would be like Indiana's clan influence in the 1920s, which finally ended when they figured out one of the top clansmen was a serial rapist and sicko, like most of them were.
	The and so that's who what's going on.
	They're now causing riots against ICE attempts at attempted assassinations of ICE officers.
	California is trying to force them to unmask so that they can be doxxed and harassed and assaulted and murdered.
	That that's what the left is busy doing in Chicago, in New York, in Portland, Oregon, in Camifornia.
	Uh, great efforts to insurrect against the elected president of the United States and the American people's demand that we enforce our immigration laws.
	So that earlier super chat about why isn't this being enforced?
	This is why they're taking Democrats are taking every obstructive effort known to man to prevent and prohibit and preclude people from being able to effectively enforce the immigration laws.
	And so the president sent in military people to guard and secure federal law enforcement, which is entirely within both his constitutional and statutory duties to make sure they can enforce the law in this context.
	Uh Katie, I'm forgetting her last name.
	Uh, a journalist was there, uh, a young woman who gets beaten up and then lied about by the Portland police later on in court proceedings that she can document.
	Then you have sorter who gets attacked, tries to defend himself, and they arrest him, which Andy knows been pointing out for a while.
	Andy N G O, NGO on online on Twitter on X and other places, has been detailing that the police will only arrest the people who defend themselves, the people who assert self-defense rights.
	It's anarcho tyranny, quite quite literally.
	I mean, they assault you, you fight you, you defend, you get arrested.
	They're basically telling you, don't come to document the madness and the criminality of Antifa thugs.
	It's like if the Klan put a burning uh cross on your front lawn, you go and knock it down, and the police come and arrest you.
	I mean, that that's what is going on, except even more dangerous, to be honest with you.
	So the in that context, Trump called up the National Guard, and the uh local federal district court judge immediately rushed in and said, No, you don't.
	I I hereby declare myself president of the United States, and you cannot call up the Oregon National Guard.
	I'll give Trump credit.
	So he called up the California National Guard to send him to Oregon just to screw with Nussome one more time.
	The uh so but it tells you how insurrectionary our these elected officials are.
	I mean, it's like the Democratic candidate for attorney general, attorney general, head law enforcement officer in Virginia, who just got caught with a bunch of text talking about how he couldn't wait to murder people, how he couldn't wait to see the for children to witness their parents murdered because of their policies.
	He said the only way to get real change on policies is to murder people.
	And he's running for the head law enforcement officer of one of the most important states in the country.
	Democrat candidate for Virginia's attorney general Jay Jones is facing a firestorm after a series.
	2022 2022, by the way.
	This is not like 2012.
	This is not like 2002.
	Calling for the then state us speaker to get two bullets to the head were leaked this week.
	Three people, two bullets.
	Jones said in the text to House Delegate Carrie Corner.
	Oh, but I I was just talking privately.
	Locker room talk is what they're gonna they're gonna try to flip the locker room talk here.
	I just we always make jokes about um political assassinations uh in in the locker room, and then occasionally they happen.
	That's it's wild.
	Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to bring that up.
	So the judge rushes in.
	So that case has got to go up.
	But as Mike Cernovich was talking about, as Mike uh Lee, the senator from Utah was talking about, as Elon Musk was talking about, as the El Salvadoran president was talking about.
	You can't have insurrectionary judges.
	And there needs to be impeachment remedies for these insurrectionary judges.
	Make the Democrats defend them in the Senate.
	Go through the process of the hearings of exposing them.
	Go through the process of impeaching them, go through the process of sending it to the Senate.
	Yes, I believe the Democrats will protect them once again, but make them be on record protecting them once again.
	And this will get a message out.
	In the past, mere acts, mere merely the bringing of impeachment proceedings has radically disciplined judges from continuing to engage in this kind of insurrectionary behavior, because that's what this is.
	It is protection of lawless violence at a time within two weeks after this lawless violence led to the murder of Charlie Kerr.
	Um, everybody, uh look, I'm gonna bring this up, and it's not to say the both sides.
	I'm actually just curious because uh at first I thought it was the Portland police.
	Let me think it's this one right here.
	So this is what we have as a there's nothing much that precedes this.
	I've seen the video.
	Here she's a real B I T C H. Um that and then she's telling her to do something.
	She says no in the comments pulls him back and bam.
	Robert, I mean, look, uh, it's you know, maybe there's no what she said.
	She said something threatening that they thought could me could lead to imminent risk, and that they thought it was so it's similar to you have a little bit broader authority in the use of force, though I don't agree with that.
	To me, self-defense, use of force should be the same whether you're an individual or the government.
	I've never understood the idea that government should have more authority in the self-defense.
	No, maybe anything less.
	But so they have a little bit broader authority of use of forth, uh use of force for those purposes, but generally speaking, they contoured a variations of self-defense uh and effective law enforcement.
	And the that's the only expanded provision Is that can be a justification beyond self-defense?
	And so it depends on what she said and what he knew in the context in which she said it.
	So if she said something like, My friend here is about to smack you across the face unless you get back, well, that's a different dynamic, right?
	Or and I was trying to see a minute, or maybe she said, I have uh a taco that's not quite spicy enough in my in my head.
	Would you please apply some pepper spray to that?
	But I don't know if you saw this one, Robert.
	This was I don't know if this guy's Pepe the Frog looked like.
	So there's a guy in a frog suit, and they pepper sprayed the vent on his butthole.
	Did you see this?
	Apparently he didn't even notice that it happened until like 20 minutes later.
	But because they got a the guy's got an uh a natural uh armor to fight the police.
	I don't know which side he's on.
	I just found that.
	I think Colonel McGregor's point is a good one to keep in mind.
	He is because he did a deep study for the uh the Trump administration the first term when BLM was happening about what is the most effective way to use the U.S. military to support uh to deal with domestic insurrection when the BLM riots were taking place, uh, and the beginnings of Antifa's takeover of Portland was taking place.
	And he laid out some standards and he made the point in a range of interviews this past week.
	He also has now been published.
	The uh through Secretary Kennedy, he had a proposal for the complete reorganization of the military, both in terms of purpose and organization to effectuate that purpose.
	He's now published that because it got circulated throughout the White House, the Pentagon, other places.
	Uh, that is continuously under consideration by the Trump administration.
	But one of the things he highlighted is it has to, he goes, There's an absolute role for it.
	It can be effective, the U.S. military's use in these suppressing insurrections.
	He goes, goes all the way back to the beginning of the country, George Washington, the whiskey rebellion.
	In all honesty, I was probably on the side of the people that did the whiskey rebellion.
	But the so are my ancestors, probably.
	But the uh uh, but there's always been that that history, that legal right and prerogative.
	But the key is what McGregor pointed out is there needed to be very careful and disciplined training because stuff like this could happen.
	So that you know, people get a little irritable, they get a little frustrated, they get a little exhausted.
	It's not like a normal military structure.
	He used a lot of the history of where we've had occupying U.S. armies, like in Iraq, like in Afghanistan.
	And you there's a lot of lessons to learn there.
	And he said there is a role, there is a way to effectively use that role, but we have to be careful and disciplined in how we do so.
	It's not crystal clear to me that that's all coming to fruition at the moment.
	Uh, but I think the president clearly is within his legal right to do so because we got to get control of this domestic insurrection that is so full blown, they're publicly assassinating non-politician public officials uh when they're not assassinating and attacking him.
	And all we're getting from the educational structure, all we're getting from democratic leading politicians in these communities, and all we're getting from Hollywood with one battle after another is to glorify it, glamorize it, celebrate it, incentivize it so that there'll be a lot more of it, unless we have a real crackdown.
	There needs to be a broad based crackdown, and people know I get near this, I'm in trouble, or this is going to spread like wildfire.
	Well, now that Antifa's packed up and taking it abroad, they can be now labeled a uh a foreign terrorist organization.
	And they've always been.
	But all the you know, the if anybody has any doubts, Antifa's whole origin uh is a foreign terror organization.
	Uh, it starts in uh the in northern Italy, spreads to Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, was recreated in the 1970s, called the so-called black block in West Germany.
	More violence here in the late 1990s, uh, often staged false flag type violence to undermine what they claim they're against.
	Uh, but a very dangerous organization, a clan-like organization that poses an imminent risk to uh freedom, law, and security, and law and order in the country.
	My fat fingers.
	Oh, here we go.
	I wanted to bring up one in commy tube, and then I'm gonna go over to locals as well because I saw something in there.
	Uh, can we stop calling what they are doing protesting?
	It's public violence and intimidation.
	This is a long way from boycotting buses or peacefully picketing.
	Call them what they are, modern classes.
	Yeah, it's not P. There's no aspect of it that's peaceful protest.
	Uh, and what I was going to do, Robert, before we get to the next subject, uh over here, Andrew Piscadlo, uh, who was on on Thursday.
	Thanks for having me on the show, David.
	I'm glad I got one interview done with a hover.
	Hover?
	Is that a bro?
	A bro.
	Uh, I dusted my Yiddish.
	Okay, dude, I don't speak Yiddish.
	I speak a little Hebrew uh from back in New York City because I think it's high time to make the cray the cracked schmucks malakus.
	Uh, Andrew was the man who was a photographer was on scene um when Charlie was shot and subsequently defamed by you know a few people.
	Barnes is the shutdown the perfect setup to remove the DC judiciary asks Katz.
	I'm all for that.
	I'm all for that.
	I mean, someday they'll hopefully get around to it.
	We need impeachments of judges, of rogue judges who are engaging in impeachable behavior because remember, they're limited to good behavior.
	Unlike the president, unlike other officials, they have to prove a high crime and misdemeanor.
	You do not have to prove a high crime and misdemeanor to impeach a judge.
	And these judges are a usurping constitutional authority to the danger of our constitutional liberty, and as such, have engaged in bad behavior, just like Justice Samuel Chase did.
	And he was the first person and first judge ever impeached by the United States Congress.
	And he was part of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So the we can absolutely do it.
	Mike Johnson is a complete wuss.
	He's you know, he's too busy trying to figure out how his uh district there at the West Bank of Jerusalem uh can uh can can get its adequate representation uh to actually do his job.
	You can find Mike Johnson on tape agreeing recently with a reporter that Donald Trump is crazy.
	Uh Mike Johnson is one of the most untrustworthy, unreliable human beings on the planet, uh, and still is.
	Uh so the but somebody's got to do something about this, or it will get out of control fast.
	For those that don't know, the birth of a nation movie in 1915 by D.W. Griffith Griffith.
	And I think that's what the left Hollywood's trying to do right now with one battle after another, unleashed a wave of clan violence, unlike anything that had been seen before or after.
	The clan violence from 1919 to night to the early 1930s, midnight, mid-late 1920s was worse than anything.
	They seized control over a whole governing bodies.
	I mean, I mean, it was a very dangerous time.
	Uh I mean, the what happened in uh Oklahoma, the Black Wall Street is related to this.
	And it was also related to an inside real estate scam.
	But with that, you can watch the hush-hush at Viva Barnes Law.
	Race grifting is a long and notorious history.
	But this kind of politicized violence and weaponization that they're using with Antifa is an imminent threat.
	And to me, it's a more it's a greater threat than anything else.
	Now, I think how we use the military, I agree with those in the comments that we gotta be and agree with Colonel McGregor.
	We gotta be very careful and disciplined about this, or it can get out of hand real fast.
	Let me bring up uh sorry, hold on, bring this back here.
	To my American friends, more birth stuff.
	Sorry, options to explore.
	Carney is in Washington on Tuesday, U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hochstra, is aware.
	Press him to bring it up.
	Uh works workspace BC.
	Uh, Francis is a great idea.
	Get work safe, BC.
	Pretending they don't drift.
	No, ostrich killer carney, ostrich killer carnage.
	Burke killed the killer carnage.
	Workplace safety has a ro can get involved.
	Animal protection can get involved.
	It's there's a bunch of people, they're all a bunch of freaking cowards.
	That's the bottom line.
	Yeah, but people ask him uh well, well, what are you gonna have for dinner tonight?
	Uh ostrich.
	I look, I mean if they were killing them to eat them, it would be different.
	They're just killing them to exert government control.
	Alan Butler says, Can I get grandfather back in?
	I'm gonna look into it, Alan.
	Uh, a screenshot of this, and I do not doubt what you're saying.
	Let me see what I can do.
	Yeah, the carney in Canada is killing the birds for the same reason serial killers do for the for the joy of power.
	It's carney carnage.
	I mean, you could go with that.
	Cal she has this bet.
	Global right wing sweep October 2024 5, 40% chance.
	I'll take a look at that.
	I hadn't seen that.
	That must be a new market.
	I wouldn't, I don't think I would take that, but I mean Yeah, well, then the Czechs already won.
	So the other the populist already won there.
	So it depends on whether other election are looking.
	Oh, they're looking at the Dutch elections.
	Yeah, Irish.
	I don't know about.
	But the Dutch, the PVV is gonna win.
	The right's gonna win there, too.
	I Robert, I got burnt.
	Uh I I uh blackpilled on um uh George Simeon.
	So I, you know, they can screw it.
	We see why they fixed the elections in Romania in Moldova, because look at what happened in uh Hungary, look at what happened in the Czech Republic, look at what happened in Slovakia, look at what is uh happened in Poland in all those countries, the populist right won.
	Kat Zap says Rubio pointed out that it was not because he was not because he was here legally, but because he lied on his paperwork.
	Yeah, well, that wasn't the evidence that the judge uh you know based on his position.
	Yeah, it became clear that they just let uh Israel tell them who to take out of the country, and it's embarrassing.
	Uh, I mean, embarrassing on Rubio, really embarrassing on.
	I'll give Rubio Credit, his PR is really good because almost none of this has come back to blow back on him.
	But if you read the court's opinion, this was all Rubio letting Israel dictate the terms of our visa revocation policy.
	Well, or or maybe you know, he's not fully aware of what it was he was raising an argument that was not ultimately what was being done behind behind the scenes, but it's it was a problem.
	It was a problem.
	I can't believe how many people are believing ICE is putting zip ties on children, but it shows how extreme the mindset has become by the from the rhetoric, says RJ Iowa.
	Why does TPUSA have Mark Discall on when he consistently puts out extremely bigoted content calling members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, cultish demonic and not Christian?
	TPS USA has many LDS employees, Latter-day Saint employees.
	Uh Scrapie is a very serious, it's like mad cow for lamb, says Ali Michael.
	My counter-argument is that Islam is a special case because it is both a first amendment protective religion and a hostile empire bent on destroying the constitutional remote of the United States.
	Core part of the theology, theology participation is how they earn their way to paradise.
	I fear that the law community doesn't adequately grasp the nuances of this to parson.
	I argue that the red line should be when they cross the line beyond advocacy through the means of evidence, reason.
	It isn't brain surgery.
	We've got all these developed law for material support of terrorism.
	It's very all-inclusive.
	And it wouldn't have been that hard to go that route.
	But that's what happens when you delegate your policy to a foreign nation.
	Uh and Robert, before we get on, how many more subjects do we have left?
	Ah, well, we got uh uh the uh big second amendment win.
	Uh we've got uh purp what comey coming.
	Uh one one can uh one can fairly hope.
	Uh career criminal kills again.
	What to do with all these career criminals?
	IRS loses big.
	Uh then a couple of quicker cases.
	Nirvana wins, uh Zillow and Redfin sued for their antitrust behavior.
	And it and the last and the uh latest updates on the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation, uh uh including uh whatever uh credit to the quartering, who gave no quarter to uh crazy Queen Candace.
	Boy, that's an impressive alliteration.
	I was I was actually watching Jeremy, he was swearing a lot more than he typically does talking about that.
	He's tired of this crap.
	He's tired of this crap.
	He should be, as he should be.
	Tyler Bauer shouldn't have to be out there explaining this to people that's connected to TP USA.
	They're getting harassed because of kooky queen Candace, uh Queen of the libels.
	By the way, uh, remember how she went on bragging about how she was going to uh not even file a motion to dismiss because she couldn't wait to get to discovery in that Delaware case.
	Guess what she uh filed a week as uh a week ago or so.
	Did she file a motion to dismiss Robert?
	Yeah, of course she did because she's a hypocritical fraud.
	That's who Queen Candace of the Queen of the Kooks really is.
	And by the way, they've been calling her Queen Candace for a better part of a decade because that's how arrogant and condescending she is with all kinds of people all around her.
	No, you I hadn't heard that she they she was called that until you brought up five years ago.
	Good fella D says a country has a military draft.
	Can they draft any military-aged person that happens to be within their borders, regardless of which country they're citizen of?
	No, they're not subject to the jurisdiction.
	Yeah, that was one of the arguments that Eastman Eastman raised.
	Harry Toe says uh conspiracy theory, the government shut down just before Comet 3-1 Atlas reached Mars.
	NASA was shut down, and aliens are invading us.
	1884, Elk Wilkins uh declared tax paying Indians does not.
	And that's the one they they cited that uh that is some of the cases that I read that uh has supportive language for this new argument.
	Robert, I I I gutterballed my last two shots playing bowling on last Robert.
	I was at bowling a 148 in the 10th frame on two strikes, and I gutterballed both.
	I hadn't gutter balled in a month.
	I'm still angry.
	It's been five days.
	I gotta go back and bowl on Tuesday.
	Still angry.
	But I had my bursitis in my shoulder, I'm not making excuses.
	Robert, two gutter balls.
	They looked at me like they thought I it's it's the side uh uh of getting old.
	No, but that's like two gutter balls on two strikes, so I got zero.
	And this is how I realized I would not be able to play uh the world series of poker because if I got if I lost because uh you know an ace on the river, a one-utter, I would never forget about it.
	I if I missed a putt for a million, you know, I would never be able to get over it.
	I was watching the fight this weekend, Vanderford.
	I I met him at the card shop.
	I don't know how professional fight, you know, how they get over a loss.
	Um imagine the bad beats of uh uh of uh sports uh betters.
	No, yeah.
	I had like it happened like back to back of the I had a game I was up 20.
	Uh, you know, I was gonna cash a uh a big bet and then he lost at the very end.
	Another bet looked like it was in the pocket, 20 seconds left.
	All they had to do is the opposing team had to just kneel on the ball and it's over.
	And they throw a pass 19 seconds left and get the touchdown and get the cover.
	It's like, oh, you gotta be kidding me.
	I'm gonna hate that coach for forever.
	Uh TCU, Sonny Dykes, US, yeah.
	But yeah, so the everybody's got that story.
	A couple of weeks ago, Philadelphia Eagles getting killed by the LA Rams, Eagles come all the way back, but it looks like the Rams are gonna win at the end.
	But no matter what, even if he misses the field goal, they can't Eagles can't cover this big fat defensive tackle, blocks it for the Eagles, and then he's so excited, he's running all the way to the end zone.
	The logical thing is that to go down, so the game is over and you won, but no, he can't wait.
	He's like it's the only time he's ever gonna get in the end zone in his life.
	And he's in the Eagles cover, and all these Rams fans just sit there in uh uh betters to sit there and well that's a no, but I felt like who was the guy?
	It was um oh geez, in in Ace Ventura, uh laces out guy.
	Oh, what was this?
	What was the name of the character?
	Einhorn.
	I feel like Einhorn, like I can I'm I laces out gutter ball, gutter ball view, you idiot.
	Robert, okay, sorry.
	Uh what we're gonna talk about.
	Now I just forgot what we were gonna go into because of all the uh so we got uh the uh probably the the the big second amendment win is probably the uh good one to cover here.
	That you're barred from taking a firearm into a post office because it's federal property.
	This is an interesting one, also because I like I don't know who if you blame Pam Bondi for continuing to defend this case, which is to uh continue to support a prohibition on bringing firearms into a post office.
	The court struck it down, basically saying that of the historical explanation, as was per Bruin, there has never not only has there never been uh a historical argument for prohibiting firearms in post offices, there's probably been a historical argument for carrying firearms into post offices, and they're all of their other alternative explanations.
	It's a sensitive site, it's a government site, whatever, whatever.
	Um is that big of a deal?
	Like I don't even understand how you have if in in places where you have open carry laws that you then have places where you can't bring a gun.
	And I understand schools, concerts, uh especially where there's alcohol, but a post office?
	Like what that was what was what was the what was the basis of the rationale?
	And do you blame Bondi for maintain for continuing to assert the defense of this policy?
	Yeah, it is a disappointing that Bondy didn't immediately intervene and say that the government no longer supports the defense of this policy.
	Everything was briefed and litigated back when Biden was in control, but this was another case.
	She should have stepped in and clarified the Justice Department position.
	I have no doubt that it's just not even on her.
	You know, it's clear she's in over her head uh in many different capacities.
	Though the chief of staff, that was a real problem.
	I think it's Chad Mazel, whatever his last name was.
	Apparently, he's going bye-bye.
	So that that's good news for all of us who want real reform and remedy uh in the Justice Department.
	So those don't remember, you know, the post office was one of the first agencies ever created America.
	In fact, it was created even before uh we were a country, uh, in part.
	And the reason was we wanted to make sure we our mail uh wouldn't be looked at by those snooping spying Brits.
	Uh we know they want to sneak in there and they might see some uh treasonous conspiracies between some uh old family cousins of mine, you know, Sam Adams uh sending some to some barns in Rhode Island and saying, hey, you know, let's let's get together, let's have a little tea party uh next week.
	So the uh that's how it started.
	Uh the it's it it was the main form of federal government employment through like up until like until the New Deal era.
	Uh in fact, it was the it was the center stone of the spoils system.
	That's why big Jim Farley was the postmaster, he was there to hand out the jobs for FDR.
	And the whoever won the election got to the postal job.
	That was the gig.
	So the so that's how politically ingrained it was within our society.
	And the they always had a problem with people stealing mail.
	Now the deep state in the first version of a deep state during the civil war, used postmaster control to spy on everybody.
	Uh, it was the beginning of the surveillance state, and unfortunately, his efforts to kill everybody, not just the president, but the vice president, the second, you know, the general grant and others, uh, and the secretary of defense failed, or secretary of that's back, It's now back to being called Secretary of War, which is fine by me because it's called honesty and advertising and labeling in my in my book.
	The uh, but so through that, so it's all been part of ingrained part of our system, but basically, people have been trying to steal mail forever because often money used to be sent in the mail.
	Uh, so that it was a target of bandits and robbers and thieves, not just people trying to spy and get inside information on an individual.
	And so, in that context, that they often you often had to have a gun to defend yourself against these people.
	And never at any time, and it used to be like a person's private home was was where the postmaster was and a lot of these small rural communities, etc.
	That's how ingrained it was to local life.
	Uh, they the government's excuse was we didn't even have official post offices because the post office is where the guy's home was.
	That's even more intimate that you would want to protect uh safeguard.
	But back then we understood the best way to safeguard it was to encourage having guns.
	Nothing invites mass shooters more than a gun-free zone, as Congressman Massey of Covington, Kentucky has repeatedly reiterated and tried to make the law so represent and reflect.
	So this has long been a sore site uh for those of Second Amendment liberty orientation that a place that is as commonly visited and as integral to a community is the one place you cannot defend yourself when it has been a place.
	Just look, I mean, why do we call it going postal?
	Because I I brought that up that back in the day, it for whatever the reason it was people working the job at the post office would show up with a gun and shoot up their workplace because of how tedious and monotonous uh you know when that started?
	It started after they made post offices gun free.
	Shut up, Robert.
	In fact, they didn't do this until 1964, 1972.
	And what they did, imagine the deep state.
	We're gonna murder your political leaders who might reform our country, and then we'll use their murders to take away your self-defense rights.
	And that's exactly what they did.
	And after that happened in 1972, within a decade, that's when we started seeing mass shootings by postal workers at postal offices because they knew they could go in there and didn't have to worry that uh that George was packing and would just take him out right away.
	I mean, in fact, when they've done interviews with these mass shooters, they have repeatedly said they always target a place that is a gun-free zone because they know they won't be able to get away with it if they go to a place where somebody is packing.
	Uh, so this is something the media suppresses and suppresses and doesn't want anybody to understand or appreciate.
	That's why your average normie liberal doesn't understand this whatsoever.
	So this has always been a horrendous provision.
	And and they've always uh had and what they said is the appropriate remedy to deal with stealing mail and attacks on the postal office is to criminalize that, not strip people of their self-defense.
	And the you know, I had my own experience uh dealing with stolen mail.
	I was once subject to investigation for it.
	Go once got pulled over in Malibu because you go to Pacific Coast Highway, and once you're turning down a certain way, if you don't turn around quick, you're screwed and you're stuck driving for five miles.
	So I was like, oh, that gum, I gotta turn around now.
	So I did a Yui, and right coming around the corner was a cop.
	I was screwed.
	I was like, ah, so he pulled me over.
	So first he ran the license plate, and the license plate came back as owned by nobody.
	You know, I have interesting forms of asset protection.
	But it threw him up, how's your car owned by no one?
	And I was like, ah, it's just in process, don't worry about it.
	And then he looked in the back of the car and he saw a bunch of mail because I happened to be living at a place where other people's mail was also being delivered.
	So he thought, and I I made the biggest mistake.
	I was driving a poor vehicle in Malibu, which is the quickest way to get pulled over.
	It's not driving well black in Malibu, it's driving while a poor vehicle.
	I I fixed that problem, by the way.
	The they pulled me over, they held me for four hours by the side of the road.
	They had like eight cops there.
	This guy, he thought you know, he had something big.
	Uh, mostly just because I was you know driving a poor vehicle with other people's mail in the car and became obsessed with it.
	I mean, I was like, Well, why are you?
	Oh, there's a mountain behind me and an ocean in front of me.
	And it's like, where am I gonna go?
	Why are you gonna do these 15 cops surrounding me?
	So the uh they're even calling people up, saying, I have Mr. Barnes in my custody, do you know me?
	Because, like, hey, you can call around, everybody can vouch for.
	But so that's how we deal with stolen mail.
	We don't strip people of their second amendment rights.
	So the Supreme District Court made the right decision.
	Uh, and very promising in the second amendment context as to the direction it will be going.
	Fantastic.
	Um, let's do one more before we head on over to um Viva Barnes Law.locals.com for the after party.
	The z is it Zillow and um I forget what the other finred redfin.
	Redfin.
	I'm totally dyslexic.
	Uh so this is an uh FEC complaint that there's an undue monopoly that has been an unholy uh a monopoly that has been created through this unholy alliance of Zillow effectively buying uh Finred Redfin out of out of the market of listing residential units,
	but basically paying them 100 million dollars to cease operations, they get their employees, they get their listings, and there is no longer any meaningful competition on the marketplace uh because Zillow is going to now have a basic effect of monopoly as a result of this agreement, which drives out competition, their primary competition having been Redfin.
	Um okay, uh look, you you you'll you'll tell me what you think of it, uh what the impact and import is.
	You have listings for rental and sale units, and the idea is that it's going to, I don't know what, drive up, I don't want to say drive up prices.
	Well, what's going to be the nefarious consequence of the monopoly, even if one exists, because people are going to list their own properties.
	It will lead to prices going up.
	So the real of the real estate market.
	Yeah, because the real estate market will need to increase their prices because they're going to have to increase their prices that they are charged for their advertising of the place.
	So that the the so there's a classic Sherman Act, Clayton Act, unlawful agreement to monopolize prices.
	And that's clearly what Zillow and Redfin did.
	And they just cut a deal right out in the open to do it.
	Like, hey, we're competitors.
	Let's not be competitors.
	I'll pay you, and we'll agree to screw the whole market.
	Monopolize it.
	Uh with a competitive effect.
	It was just the idea as to how it would affect the pro the real estate market.
	People list the properties for what they're going to list them regardless.
	I don't say that this is good or bad.
	I appreciate it.
	Definitely looks like a monopolist.
	Zillow can raise their prices now for the charging of the advertising.
	And if they re increase their so there's that market, and then there's the derivative impact that it may lead to increase in rents in order to cover the increase in advertising cost of the landlord.
	And so do you in your assessment, I don't think I have good prediction values when it comes to uh uh these types of outcomes.
	The FEC's complaint is relatively well fleshed out.
	I mean, it looks pretty much like they're buying them out to not compete.
	Yeah, and it's it's more good work.
	I mean, excellent work continues under assistant attorney general Gail Slater at the Justice Department in the antitrust division.
	She is the real deal.
	Uh you know, creating just like Harmete Dillon at the civil rights division, real deal.
	These people are doing great work.
	They're doing God's work, they're taking the lead.
	Uh, and and and here the Federal Trade Commission, which has been on top of a bunch of good issues here too as well.
	Uh, especially once Trump got out that, you know, the the loser lunatic that is now up before the Supreme Court, uh, the propriety and legality of so doing, which Trump has been for the time being allowed to do.
	But that's why we're finally taking seeing some meaningful consequential antitrust action that the corporatist side of the GOP would like to see go away.
	And the pay-for-play side of certain people that at least used to be in Pam Bonnie's office were were trying to uh cut sweetheart deals for these companies.
	So now we're seeing positive action on the antitrust uh front to deter this beh uh anti-competitive behavior that only enriches a few at the expense of the many in violation of a true free market free enterprise system, which is what antitrust law is designed to truly uh provide.
	So very promising in that regard in that respect.
	Um and there's more cases like that coming uh coming down the pipeline.
	There's some big ones in the health insurance industry coming down the pipeline.
	So there's some ones that could be truly reformative and revolutionary in its effect and impact, uh, thanks to the good work of people like uh assistant attorney general Slater at the Justice Department.
	So the uh so good news there.
	And then we got uh we got you know a quartet of cases uh we can cover over Viva Barnes Law dot locals.com in the after party, or if somebody wants us to cover one of the four, we can cover one of those now.
	We got Nirvana's win.
	We got a big loss of the Infernal Revenue Service, we got Perpwakin James Comey, and we got the case of this the horrific death of Logan for Frederico in South Carolina.
	What does it say about the problem of the career criminal?
	I was gonna say let's do comey Here, but I want we want to entice people to come on over to Viva Barnes Law.locals.com where I can use I haven't used it tonight, people.
	The bell from Ginger Ninja.
	Yes, it's made from a bullet on both sides.
	Uh we'll see if we get anyone to come on over to support our work over there by teasing the come.
	Let's do the Nirvana, because we both called it that they were trying.
	The guy was petitioning the court, uh, the the little baby with the weenie on it to declare that he was basically, I forget the exact details, but they wanted to declare it child pornography.
	The cover of Nirvana's um nevermind.
	Wait, right.
	And basically he wanted a bunch of money uh for and the only way he could get the money, more money than it was already paid, uh, with you know, people connected to the kid, was to call it uh child pornography.
	Yep.
	And we all said they that just as a pure matter, I mean, this was my logic at the time, as a pure matter of fact, they could never do it because then it would mean that there are tens of millions of Americans who are in possession of child pornography.
	Just as a pure logic matter, you would be retroactively criminalizing conduct, which is uh uh absolutely against all laws, but also against all logic, a naked picture of a kid.
	The guy wanted money, he went after this argument to say it's CP, and they said as a matter of law on summary judgment, it is not child pornography.
	Take your pack up and get the hell out of here.
	You should have been happy with the money you got.
	Exactly.
	Because what is child pornography?
	It is some it is not mere nudity, it is nudity for the purpose of uh of lasciviousness uh for sexualized purposes.
	And this was not a sexualized image.
	It was more like a national geographic, it was a more artistic version of a national geographic, you know, you know, visiting some African tribe, uh, the or some Amazonian tribe.
	So uh, as we predicted, uh, one and another one of the predictions that was a tech yes in the market.
	Okay, let's do also the career criminal, another one of these cases of career mentally ill criminals who kills another person on the street, similar to Irina Zarutzka up in North Carolina.
	Uh people can racialize these incidents, but uh more beneficial would be actually you know, accurately some uh analyzing what the issues are here.
	Career criminals, mental illness who get led out of jail who do not get institutionalized under court order and go out to kill.
	And then by that time, it's too who's this guy?
	He had like something like 14 prior charges over the course of uh a decade violent charges.
	What was it?
	What's the deal?
	So his history is so he's another part of these career criminal class.
	And in the late 80s, early 90s, we identified that there were about five to 10% of criminals who are just habitual criminals.
	Uh now, one could make an argument that aspects of our social welfare system and juvenile imprisonment system and our foster care system is meant to facilitate this.
	The you know, the old argument was how do you make people feel safe about the police?
	You create a permanent criminal class that scares them more than armed members of the state constantly monitoring, surveilling and being present.
	How do you make people feel good about the government watching them all the time?
	Uh going through their neighborhood every day uh with the power and tools of force, right?
	They're constantly omnipresent.
	You make them more scared of a criminal.
	But in order to do that, you need a career criminal.
	And how do you do that?
	You use a social welfare uh foster system and juvenile care system to create and curate, if you will, this career criminal class.
	This gentleman, well, whatever, whether you think that's the origin story as I do or not.
	Uh either way, he was clearly a career criminal.
	Now, mostly it was B and East on vehicles.
	Uh, but it what happens with those guys is they tend to escalate, or if they get caught, bam, violence.
	Well, I mean, it is just B and E breaking and entering.
	And when it happens with vehicles, it's exactly what happened with Jamie White, where they were breaking into his Kia.
	He came and intervened, and they shot him in the neck.
	Exactly.
	I mean, that's what in Canada, the advice is just give him your keys, just give him your keys.
	You might you might choose to do it as a pure matter of personal decision, but when the police say that out loud, they are empowering the criminals, period.
	Exactly.
	The and so this uh gentleman broke into somebody's house.
	Uh so he had extensive criminal history in and out of jails all the time.
	Three years here, two years here, four years there.
	The and some people were wondering, how does this happen?
	Well, these the sort of this level of criminal in the 90s, we said we're just gonna do mass lockups, three strikes laws came from this, all of that.
	Now, did it get a misapplied in a range of circumstances?
	Yes.
	Uh, did it go A-wall in certain circumstances?
	Yes.
	But it had a positive side effect, which was it did get, you know, it probably got 20, 25% of the people caught under it were not the original targets of it.
	Uh, but 70, 75% were.
	And ask yourself, it wasn't just you know, Rudy in New York with community policing that led to a dramatic decline in crime because the same dramatic decline in crime happened across the nation from the mid 90s, mid-90s to the early 2000s.
	And why?
	Uh it was because of these mandatory minimums and these other policies that targeted the or at least caught in its net, the permanent criminal class.
	And you got these five percent of people who are just they they're they're beyond rehabilitation, and they've proven that repeatedly.
	Now, I think there's some things we can do to snip this in the bud.
	I don't think our our entire juvenile incarceration system makes a ton of sense.
	In other words, how is it okay?
	You've been arrested, first time in crime.
	Well we're gonna do is we're gonna take you and have you live with a bunch of other criminals who will probably do a lot of violence to you.
	Uh huh.
	Well, who thinks that's gonna lead to somebody not being part of a permanent criminal class?
	So there's things like that, our foster care system, which promotes all the wrong people and keeps out all the right people.
	So I think that's a way, but otherwise, we have to look at harsher punishments for people that fit this imminent to me.
	It's not about general deterrence, it's about individual deterrence.
	There's a certain category of criminals that are simply a persistent uh uh threat to the safety of the community.
	And this guy was that.
	This guy was flashing that, and then every time he got out, go commit another car.
	Goes in, go out.
	Now, some of it was exactly like people were saying 28 charges.
	Well, like 10 of those charges were traffic charges, and there are things thrown in mixed in.
	But what they were but they were right about the gist of it, which is this is somebody that was flagging permanent criminal class member.
	He's gonna be a constant threat to civil society until he's in his 70s.
	And somebody like that, you have to imprison uh or do something to remove them from being a constant threat to society.
	And I think we have to recreate our laws to make sure we target those individuals that while the net was probably too big at times in the 90s and probably too parochially focused on drugs.
	Uh, at the same time, there was aspects of it that really worked.
	And we have to take those aspects and probably reincorporate them into our system, but we have to look at it holistically, not just a piece of it here or there.
	Like there's a big difference between the drug addict who's gonna get caught in criminalities and the permanent criminal.
	This guy screamed permanent criminal from the time he was a teenager, and now a young lady is dead because we failed to take care of uh protector by failing to address the threat that he presented.
	Yeah, can't disagree with that.
	Robert, okay, we're gonna we're gonna bring the party on over to Viva Barnes Law.locals.com.
	Before we do that, remind everyone.
	Louis the Lobster on Amazon.
	I think the website for Viva Fry merch is back up.
	The certificate had expired.
	And now it says service unavailable.
	What is going on with that?
	Huh, okay.
	Well, I'm gonna have to figure that out.
	You don't go to the uh t-shirt for uh the viva fry site.
	Freedom.
	You know, the the the shirt Charlie Kirk has been.
	I don't want I know I don't want anyone thinking or accusing or even feeling like uh I would be trying to exploit off tragedy.
	That is my last name.
	Flyheit means freedom.
	Um, just be that fry height means freedom.
	Viva Fry.
	I that I can we that I could do.
	I didn't think I didn't want to do anything with the burrs.
	I don't want to do anything with with Charlie because it looks and feels exploitive.
	Um to exploit tragic like that.
	Yeah, it was boy or the way to honor him, respect him, you know, to try to integrate.
	I liked another shirt I saw uh that uh probably get from somewhere.
	Uh one of Richard Barris's neighbors was wearing it, and it was uh Charlie Kirk's uh image on the front on the back just said legend.
	Uh you know, that's that's appropriate.
	The uh to to honor, recognize, respect and uh to him.
	And that's one of the uh in the after party will address three questions.
	The IRS, uh big loss, thank God.
	Uh, even though 3M benefits, which you know, say say love.
	Uh can't have everything.
	Uh James Comey getting perp walked, and a the latest update on the Charlie Kirk assassination.
	Why cookie Queen Candace uh is gone completely off the rails.
	She has gone full of Kanye.
	Never go full Kanye.
	Uh and tomorrow who do you have what do you have on this week, Arbor?
	We're gonna have our sidebar Wednesday.
	Who do you have on the Monday, 2 p.m. Eastern time, an hour before V was on the uh uh with Richard Bearis on what are the Odds?
	We will be breaking down the New Jersey election, the Virginia election, the Virginia Attorney General election, the New York City Mayor's election, the Irish election, the Netherlands election, how long the shutdown might go, how the how whether a clean continuing resolution will pass.
	We'll discuss all of those literal odds in the Cowchi markets and give you our insight and analysis, as well as the political popularity or hint hint lack thereof for invading Venezuela.
	And then on Wednesday, a special edition, a sidebar with the Durant, Alexander McCorsey, Alex Christophuru.
	Uh, the uh, I think eleven AM Eastern time on Wednesday, covering the whole landscape, covering the globe.
	Are we gonna go to war with Venezuela?
	Are we gonna go to war with Russia?
	Are we gonna go to war with Iran?
	Are we is Israel and the US gonna get stuck further deeper in Gaza?
	Uh, what's happening in Europe?
	Are they all insane there?
	Uh, the we'll get through all of that.
	Uh, the global landscape covering the world uh with the Duran, Wednesday, eleven AM Eastern time, live.
	Before you go, peeps, if you're not coming over, thumbs up, smash that like and subscribe on CommyTube.
	They are s not even recommending the videos I put out to our own subscribers.
	The solution to that is Rumble and Viva Barnes Law Dot Locals.com.
	Get your buttons over to locals.
	Everyone else, peace out, godspeed.
	See ya tomorrow.
	Uh,

▲