Viva & Barnes - Ep. 289: Arctic Frost, Boasberg Impeachment, SNAP Funding, Trump - China, Tylenol Sued & MORE!

Nov. 2, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:29

Ep. 289: Arctic Frost, Boasberg Impeachment, SNAP Funding, Trump - China, Tylenol Sued & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, ordinarily I would run this video with no audio so that you could watch the mannerisms of a defeated man, Mark J. Carney.
	But for those listening in podcast format, you would hear merely silence.
	This is Mark J. Connie, three passport-carrying globalist WFEF Hoo, Prime Minister of Canada, publicly admitting he had to apologize to Donald John Trump for the gaffe of Doughboy Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario.
	Behold.
	You apologize to Donald Trump about Ontario's anti-tariff ad.
	I did.
	I did apologize to the president.
	President was offended by the act, or by the ad, rather.
	And it's not something I would have done, which is to put in place that advertisement.
	Did you keep the federal government in the loop before going ahead with that ad?
	Oh, sure.
	There's lots of conversations between the Prime Minister and Premier Ford.
	They have a great relationship.
	As you heard last Thursday, the Premier reiterate that Premier Ford has 100% confidence in Prime Minister Carney.
	We're in this together.
	Oh, gosh, we're in this together.
	I'm the one, in English, I'm the one who is responsible in my role as Prime Minister for the relationship with the President of the United States.
	And the federal government is responsible for the foreign relationship with the U.S. government.
	So things happen.
	We take the good with the bad.
	And I apologize to the bad.
	This is a series of everybody throwing the other under the bus.
	Mark J. Carney has to come out, and people who hate Trump already are going to hate Trump even more right now.
	They're going to say, my goodness, look at what a bully Donald Trump is.
	He made Mark Carney kiss the ring.
	I think ordinarily, Canadians would probably have to come out saying, what the hell are you apologizing for, Carney?
	Elbows up, right?
	That's how you do it.
	Elbows up.
	Stick it to the man.
	What'd you say you were going to do on day one there, Carney?
	Oh, yeah, we're going to do retaliatory tariffs, eh?
	And then after all of that's done, then I'll pick up a phone and talk some sense into big old Donald John Trump.
	Doug Ford, the idiot that he is, runs an ad taking Reagan comments out of context, or at least not in full context, blows up trade talks between Canada and the U.S., and then Mark Carney has to come back groveling and apologize to Trump for what is obviously offensive in the political economic sense,
	act of running a propaganda ad for $75 million, running that ad on American television during the World Series, which the Dodgers won.
	that he viewed the ad with you in advance of it going to air.
	Since you're the person that's solely responsible for negotiations, did you inform Mr. Ford that this is something that you did not want to go forward with?
	Yes.
	Oh, do you know...
	Oh, my goodness.
	Chief of Staff saw this particular ad before you moved ahead with airing it.
	I was with him.
	What the hell is going on?
	I mean, this is, first of all, this is from Mario for the North.
	Everybody should check him out.
	He's a great, a great Twitter account to follow.
	What the hell is going?
	I'm not playing the full three minutes.
	This is no honor among thieves, ladies and gentlemen.
	What the hell is going on?
	All right, so they watched the ad together.
	Did Carney okay the ad, thinking it wouldn't have the impact it did?
	And when it had the impact it did, then he comes back and you know, grovels back to Donald Trump.
	Did he tell Doughboy Doug Ford not to do it?
	And Dougie, in all of his infinite wisdom, thought it was going to be in his, what's the word I'm looking for?
	In his purview to blow up trade deals with America?
	How the hell does a provincial premier run a $75 million taxpayer-funded ad on foreign televisions?
	And you know, the idiots who are saying, oh my gosh, this guy's got unlimited budgets because Dougie Ford, you know, biggest economy in Canada, most populous province in Canada, also happens to be a steaming hellhole.
	Go live in Toronto, people.
	Don't.
	Go live in Brampton, people.
	You won't recognize it as Brampton.
	He comes out and blows $75 million of taxpayer-funded money because there are some people who see a fool and taxpayer money.
	And yeah, yeah, we'll run that ad for you.
	$50 million.
	I'm actually just wondering which way it went down.
	Did both Carney and Doug say, do it?
	It'll be awesome.
	Elbows up.
	And then, like, holy shit, that didn't work out as planned.
	All right, I'm going to go apologize.
	And fuck you, Dougie.
	This is a terrible idea.
	Why'd you suggest this?
	Good evening, people.
	How goes the battle?
	This is Viva Fry, Sunday night.
	Viva and Barnes Law Extravaganza.
	We are live across all platforms.
	That is to say, CommiTube, which is a very vetty commie, but it's a good platform to advertise Rumble.
	We're live on Rumble.
	We're live on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And we are live on X.
	Now, before we get into everything, before we get into anything, because it's the Sunday night show, and because, hold on one second, I want to thank our sponsors tonight.
	We're talking about how to keep yourself safe from tyrannical governments, how to make sure governments don't come in and freeze your money.
	I'll tell you how they do that.
	Oh, hold on.
	You're not going to get the audio on this thing because it doesn't play audio for some reason.
	I'm going to turn the all-audio down.
	You're just going to listen to my beautiful voice explain to you what crypto.com is, people.
	Cryptocurrency, as you know, is no longer emerging.
	It's here.
	And the latest move cements that in a really 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.
	It's a, what's the word?
	An exchange, crypto.com.
	I'll give the full disclaimer at the end.
	None of this is financial advice.
	You risk, you invested your own risks and perils.
	But if you're going to use a platform, crypto.com is the network.
	No, it's sort of the word looking for the exchange to use.
	Now they're teaming up to scoop up $6.4 billion in CRO, the powerhouse token that fuels fast, low-feed DeFi staking rewards, real-world perks like cashback on your spends to establish the 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.
	Want in on the action?
	You head over to crypto.com today and let's make crypto great again.
	For more information on the proposed business combination, check out the Yorkville Acquisition Corpse public filings.
	And again, as always, people, just not financial advice, not investment advice, but I know a lot of you use crypto.
	And if you're looking for an amazing exchange, you go to crypto.com and trade, invest.
	I don't know.
	Tip, if you're so inclined, using Rumble's new.
	Have you seen it?
	You've all seen it, people.
	Hold up one second.
	Let me bring it up here.
	I want to show you because it's the wave of the future on Rumble.
	Rumble has this little icon.
	I think I'm the first one to have it now called the Rumble Wallet.
	And you can tip in crypto to any creators when this goes, gets available for everybody.
	And it's going to be in, I think, they say late November, December, coming very soon.
	But mine is active.
	And so if you want to test it out, you can go scan that QR code, give a tip instead of a live chat, crumble rent.
	You can go give a tip in crypto from your crypto wallets to the extent that you have.
	If you don't have, you can open one up and it's actually amazing.
	All right.
	What do I start with today?
	Let me get to some of the crumble rants and the comments over in viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	We've got one hell of a show tonight.
	You're weekly reminded that Gillette still hates men and Epstein didn't kill himself from Gray 101.
	I did one.
	And P. Vecchio says you should talk with Larry Sharp about third parties, RFK Jr.
	in New York State and his run for governor.
	We're going to get into all of that tonight.
	First things first.
	You know, I said like I want to root.
	I don't root against the Blue Jays.
	It was, I didn't really watch it.
	I followed it and I wake up in the middle of the night and refresh my phone.
	As far as World Series goes and as far as the distraction that sports is, and it could be a useful, soul-soothing distraction, it's impossible there has ever been a better, more thrilling World Series ever.
	Game seven, coming back from 3-2, an 18-inning overtime game, another 11th inning, you know, overtime in the game seven, and the Dodgers won, and the Blue Jays didn't.
	But the Blue Jays team consists majority of American players to begin with.
	A fun distraction, but for anybody who is into baseball trading cards and who might be holding on to a Shohei Otani numbered refractor.
	I don't have an autograph.
	I have a crappy numbered refractor.
	Graded PSA 10.
	It was the outcome that you wanted, but it was Yamamoto, the pitcher, who saved the game, stole the game, MVP, a man whose debut in baseball was an utter disaster, coming up clutch and saving the game.
	So that's the news there.
	Everybody watch baseball and it's fantastic.
	What else before we get Barnes in here?
	Let me show you what's going on at our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community.
	Okay, that's an interesting meeting.
	Take a couple of tip questions before we get into tonight's show.
	Barnes can pop in whenever he's ready.
	Mike Benz is onto something.
	Will Pam Blondie follow through?
	Let me bring this up in a second, in exactly one second.
	Gray 101 says President Trump needs to repeal Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10B18, 1982, to stop buybacks that encourage U.S. companies to mass layoff.
	Dandy Boy5 says, love Robert, but his geopolitics has been tainted by the losers he vouches for, like the Duran and the Gaggle.
	The last episode of Gold Goats and Guns would be of interest to Barnes as he has mentioned.
	I like Tom Luongo's position on geopolitics.
	Gray 101 says, before the midterms, president, Trump needs to keep his promise of ending taxes on tips and social security.
	Yeah, the only issue is it's going to be a credit and not no tax on.
	And so you'll see it at the end of the year after you do your taxes to the extent that you're going to get a credit.
	Otherwise, his disillusioned base will most likely turn out in 2026.
	And Gray 101 says, please explain Salinas versus Texas and Burgess versus Tompkins.
	Supreme Court Fifth Amendment is like Beetlejuice.
	It doesn't exist until you show it for it three times to appear.
	We'll get to that in a bit.
	Barnes, you ready to come in?
	Before we do that, I wanted to.
	Barnes is getting me in trouble again.
	We're going to see.
	I haven't seen the reception of my Barnes is picking on Gad Sat again.
	Gadsat is tagging me in a tweet saying, Barnes is usually very nice, but he's not so nice anymore.
	Viva, what's going on?
	And all right, here we go.
	So this is it.
	Let's back this down.
	It's funny.
	It's some funny stuff.
	In response to a tweet from Gad Sat, where Gad, I hadn't seen this tweet.
	I'm not following everybody's fighting on Twitter.
	I'm getting involved in enough of my own.
	Dear Kevin Roberts, Texas, I appreciate your recent post, including this one.
	I wonder, do you know of any high-profile conservatives with whom you are friendly who seem to have taken a deep liking to the Jew hater mentioned in your post?
	If so, what are your thoughts on the bromance?
	To which Barnes says, your turn from honey badger to honey bitch is quite impressive.
	Congratulations.
	And then Gad's tagging me.
	I say, look, I've got my theory on this.
	I'll get to my tweet in a second.
	Barnes, I've noticed over the past you've engaged is rather insulting.
	In the past, we had very cordial interactions, which explains what explains the recent departure.
	Perhaps your mutual friend can offer some insights.
	This is my long-running theory.
	I pick enough heights on Twitter.
	I'm not meeting between two people I like, but this is my theory.
	We use words, and when we put them into written format, they just read differently than when you say them in debate.
	The amount of people I've called them, you know, you call them bitches, they shut the fuck up.
	Dude, shut the fuck up.
	Everybody says that.
	The second you put it into writing on Twitter, it becomes like more holy than if it's just spoken word.
	You know, and I called someone on Twitter the other night an ignorant twat because it was in response to a post that was lecturing, moralizing, judging Erica Kirk for that.
	It's fake fucking news, and everybody has to understand this, running her hands through JD Vance's hair.
	I was like, everybody reacting to this screen grab hasn't seen the video.
	I post the video.
	It's a four-second video.
	And so I called, I said, somebody, I said, someone who's being judgmental to a grieving widow to suggest that there's some sort of impropriety going on in this moment, this screen grab.
	You got to have a couple of moral screws loose to be that callous to somebody.
	And the British coat of arms.
	Oni soi qui mali pons.
	Shame on he who thinks ill of something so innocent is the is the moral.
	Look at what motherfuckers on the internet are doing.
	And then I have to get into a fight with Richard Hanania, who says Erica Kirk has made herself fair game for this type of attack because she's fundraising off the murder of her husband.
	She's politicizing the murder of her husband.
	Like, holy shit, Richard.
	I mean, have you lost your marbles?
	How do you politicize an assassination, a political assassination?
	It's politicized by definition.
	Oh, she's fundraising off of the murder of her husband?
	Well, she's just let everything wither away and have the terrorist assassins succeed in their goal.
	And then people are remorseless.
	They are inhumane in the criticism of Erica.
	So I called someone to twat.
	I was like, fuck it, you're a fucking bitch.
	I would have said it into her, I said it to the person's face.
	I don't care that we're on the same side.
	If we're on the same side, what the hell are you attacking Erica Kirk who's on the same side?
	Oh, no, I wasn't, you know, people, people are just people are just nitpicking a grieving widow.
	And every element of her, from the pants that she's wearing, I wanted to show you the video.
	That's what I want to show you.
	Hold on a second.
	I forgot what I was doing there.
	Here's the video, people.
	The horror.
	The horror that people think they get to judge this woman and everything.
	look at that How fake news, how fake news has made people enhance it.
	Sharpen.
	What the hell?
	It was one and a half seconds.
	How long have they known each other for?
	How long have they known each other for?
	Many years?
	Close friends?
	Oh no, I wouldn't hug another man like that.
	Oh, so you're gonna, you're gonna, you're gonna take to Twitter to moralize and judge a grieving widow.
	And then other people doing even worse.
	Do I pull up Kyle Kalinsky?
	Do I even want to give this guy more airtime than he deserves?
	Kyle Kulinski.
	The biggest earmuffs, children, the biggest piece of shit on earth.
	I would say it to his face.
	And I would mean it when I call Kyle Kalinsky a world-class piece of shit.
	Inhumane demons among men.
	Where's his.
	It's just so funny, right?
	You know, first, first, your looney, lefty, furry, nutbag assassins murder your husband and then And then we get to make fun of you after we murder your husband.
	A special place in hell for people who do that, and a special place in hell for Kyle Kalinsky.
	I mean, the irony is that his hell is going to be on earth because people don't forget this shit.
	Imagine you just was going to do it, but then it could be misconstrued as a threat.
	And there's no but to that.
	I don't threaten people and I don't, you know, violence to the extent it's immediately necessary for self-preservation.
	Imagine someone, what's his wife's name?
	Crystal Ball?
	Imagine someone puts out the exact same thing of Crystal Ball and say, Hey, hey, Kyle, hypothetical.
	God forbid something terrible like this should happen to you.
	How would you feel about people mocking your grieving wife?
	The way you are remorselessly dehumanizing a grieving widow.
	I bet no soul, no conscience, nothing.
	Because they don't believe in a God.
	They don't believe in God.
	They don't believe in anything above themselves.
	They are God to themselves, and the government is their new God.
	So that's that.
	I don't know what else I had to say about it.
	Let me bring up one more Rumble Rand here.
	See the Veil.
	Viva, just watch a discussion with Victor Davis Hansen, the left's love of political violence on Independent Institute.
	About 20 minutes in, they talk about DEI and education and how dumbed down education is, which is another version of can't question anything.
	This reminds me of the Christian wars in Europe.
	Can't question religion, church, or government without being executed.
	So, why does anyone believe a one Christian nation or one church nation is a good idea?
	See the veil.
	Well, let me feel this one in as much as I can.
	I've got my own theories about religions and the values that they espouse.
	And everybody always thinks it's the ultimate gotcha.
	Like, oh, Christianity is not a religion of peace because they had the Crusades, ignoring the historical context in which the Crusades existed and what the Crusades were a crusade against.
	All right, set that aside.
	People say, oh, go read the Old Testament.
	It talks about stoning your neighbors and stoning homosexuals and stoning women who are unloyal.
	It's like, it does.
	And it has evolved since then to not wean out, but to no longer emphasize or promote the currently objectionable portions of that religion.
	Some religions are not as old and have not matured in the way other religions have.
	It's not an accident.
	And I'm listening to Jordan Peterson's We Who Wrestle with God and a number of other people.
	You know, people say, whether or not America is a Christian nation founded on Christianity as a religion, it sure as hell is a nation founded on Christian principles, as are pretty much all of what were the best democracies, the most functioning human rights-respecting governments out there.
	It's not an accident.
	It's not an accident that you go to countries that don't have the same founding principles.
	They don't have the same recognition of God-given rights that cannot be violated.
	And so, I mean, that's the answer.
	you want to take like Christianity from 2000 years ago versus Christianity as it's evolved since.
	Okay.
	I'm going to see where Barnes is.
	I hope he's all right.
	Oh, there you are.
	I was thinking maybe the maybe you got picked up, Mr. Barnes.
	How goes the battle?
	You're on mute.
	And you're getting.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Hold on.
	Barnes is going to check the plugs.
	That's why you couldn't hear me earlier.
	Talk to your damn thing.
	And you're out of Robert.
	What are you?
	You're getting me in trouble with Gad Sad.
	I like Gad Sad.
	Oh, no, I like Gad Sad, too.
	But, you know, I mean, this is a guy who has staked out his public career on opposing cancel culture.
	And, you know, Kevin Roberts comes out, the head of heritage, who has shifted heritage from a corporate-serving institution to the only vaguely populist conservative think tank in all of Washington, D.C.
	And he says, I'm not going to disown and disassociate from Tucker Carlson, and it's okay.
	And while attacking Fuentes, and Gad jumps on the cancel culture train.
	So yeah, Gad, if you keep celebrating cancel culture, you're no longer a honey badger.
	You're a honey bitch.
	That's just reality.
	And I love Gad.
	I think Gad's a great intellectual, great public figure, all the rest.
	But this is unacceptable.
	This is not okay.
	And clearly, I don't even think he watched Kevin Roberts' statement because he seems to not know that Robert specifically called out and attacked and critiqued Nick Fuentes.
	So it's like, that's not even an excuse.
	He's like, whoa, whoa.
	And calling the interview a bromance?
	That isn't what I saw.
	I saw Tucker put down Fuentes and say, please tell everybody about how you like Stalin and how you like Hitler and tell us some of your other kooky notions that you have.
	And by the way, don't you kind of do seem like a Fed and all the rest.
	But also, Tucker just recognized that blacklisting Fuentes was building up his martyristic pitch and driving all this traffic to him that is not productive, continuing to blacklist him backfires.
	And yet these people can't process this.
	Well, this is what I'm looking.
	I've been not tangentially involved and I've been following it.
	And I understand what they're saying.
	We're not blacklisting, but you don't need to platform.
	And I make sure to get my quotes in here.
	You don't need to platform.
	You don't need to legitimize.
	I was like, first of all, if you think what he has to say is so outrageously stupid, you want to platform him so that people can hear the ideas.
	When you don't do that, all that you enable him to do is say, they can't refute my ideas, so they won't engage with me.
	Oh, but we're not canceling him.
	We're just not engaging with him.
	That's how you legitimize his beliefs.
	Absolutely.
	That's why I debated him on Alex Jones.
	The, you know, go ahead and tell the world you think Camas should have nuclear weapons instead of Israel.
	Most people are going to think you're a little crazy when you say that.
	He even previewed it by saying, oh, this is probably going to hurt me.
	But he's, but that's where he went anyway.
	And all of his Gripper fans are still using two years, three years later, the Islamofascist.
	Islamofascism.
	A little lesson, boys and girls.
	He who defines the terms wins the debate.
	If you're using my terms, you lost the debate.
	But this attempt to get rid of the only populist think tank at all in Washington to try to de-platform and censor and shame Tucker Carlson for willing to engage and, in my view, expose.
	If you watch that, the idea that's a bromance.
	Come on, Gad.
	You didn't watch it.
	That wasn't a bromance, Gad.
	Come on.
	I have to look up the word glazing.
	I just brought up that tweet and said the Tucker interview was glazing.
	Glazing in an interview can refer to different concepts, excessive flattery or losing focus due to boredom.
	Okay, fine.
	Where's the excessive flattery?
	Well, this is what people also don't seem to understand.
	You don't need to be adversarial in order to reveal someone's stupid ideas.
	In fact, oftentimes being adversarial will not allow them the comfort of the world.
	You look like a prick.
	You'll look like Stephen Miller's wife going absolutely nuts saying she's going to deport Chenk.
	Well, no, but Piers Morgan.
	That's not a good look, people.
	It's a bad look.
	No, but I'll take Tucker.
	Or you'll end up looking like Tucker with Ted Cruz.
	That interview did not look like a sincere challenging.
	It looked like he came there to browbeat and talk over Ted Cruz.
	He got his points out, but like, you don't need to come off that way, Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz, in order to get someone to express themselves.
	And oftentimes it's counterproductive.
	If I have someone from the left on Pisco Liddy, I will not have on Destiny because I don't want to hear what he has to say about anything.
	Hassan Piker.
	You can act like an abrasive, you know, meanie and go at full throat, and you'll get nothing of substance out of the discussion.
	Whereas, if you, you know, like Howard Stern, to his credit back in the day when he had an open mind, and no longer the case, you know, he would do this with people even if he didn't like them, let make them feel comfortable so they would talk.
	Uh, he knows my Halloween outfit, I wanted to look like something that's really tortured, so I uh dressed up as uh Hassan Piker's dog.
	But now, the I mean, the there's that, that's why you know, we put out a public invite, happy to the uh to discuss, cross-examine uh uh Nick Fuentes, but do it in a fair way.
	Not, I mean, I people can go back and watch the debate with that I had with him on Alex Jones.
	I didn't ambush him, didn't make a lot of personal attacks.
	That would have done nothing at all for for what Tucker was out to do and out to achieve.
	He wasn't out to platform him in the way of boosting him, he was out to get access to his audience, uh, to Fuentes' audience.
	Fuentes, if you platform him and mainstream him, in five years, he'll be an Israeli firster.
	That's what he'll do.
	There's nothing that kid won't grip for.
	I'm sorry, I don't believe that kid for a second is sincere.
	But the but the way in which you engage is you just let people expose their the true nature of their views so people can look at him and be like, I don't think I want to be associated with that.
	Joining the cancel culture is not the way to do it.
	That was my point to Gad.
	I used some inflammatory, you know, some colorful language.
	But Gad, you use inflammatory language all the time.
	So I'm just, you know, using Gad's language back with Gad.
	No, but this is like the whole, the whole thing is like people, when they, when we're on the same side, people, you know, expect a certain degree of not even deference, but like, we should always get along even when we disagree.
	And we shouldn't, we shouldn't be as sassy with each other as we are with our adversaries.
	Well, I'm plenty sassy with people on our Robert.
	What the what the hell is wrong with Richard Hananio?
	Has he lost his mind?
	This was the greatest response.
	Because I was saying he's the winner for the biggest loser we ever had on sidebar.
	And somebody responded, No, no, no.
	Hannani is such a loser in a competition for top loser.
	He'll still finish second.
	No, but like, I don't understand.
	Like, at one point, I forget what it was.
	I was going to go back and refresh my memory.
	I had to ask him, like, are you trolling right now?
	Is this supposed to be sarcasm?
	He went full nuts.
	I mean, he's become like a neocon guy.
	I mean, he reversed.
	The reason why we had him on, he was voicing dissident opinions about war and global politics.
	Now he's become a pure like institutional advocate.
	And they don't understand.
	Like their goal is to loop it, you know, group in, associate anybody who raises any questions about the war machine, about Israel or any other war, with hating Jews.
	I'm sorry, that isn't what's animating this.
	I mean, the other thing that forgetting, Trump is Tucker isn't leading a train.
	Steve Bannon isn't leading a train.
	Alex Jones isn't leading one.
	They're on the back of it.
	They're on the caboose.
	This has been happening out there in the real world, and these people just want to stick their head in the sand.
	To put it the way I had the other day, they're not leading the train at all.
	They're representing the people on it.
	I mean, they're speaking for people.
	They're not telling them what to think.
	They're reflecting what their opinions are.
	And where I noticed, look, people call me all sorts of names regardless that I don't care, but the opposition to funding the Ukraine war, which was near universal across the right, the second you apply the same reasoning to Israel, the discussion stops and you become an anti-Semite and an anti-Semite, not anti-Israel, not critical of foreign wars.
	Thomas Massey was where I saw it materialize the most concretely.
	You could say, why are we funding this crazy war between Ukraine and Russia?
	Why are we fighting a proxy war using Ukraine as our, you know, as our whipping boy for this proxy war against Russia?
	We're squandering dollars off that go and get wasted, what's the word, laundered, whatever.
	Whether you agree with the underlying conflict or the underlying support of Israel, you can't fail to acknowledge some similarities that make those questions as legitimate in Israel as they were in the Ukraine.
	But a lot of people on the right just don't see it that way and then immediately resort to: if you apply the same logic to Ukraine to Israel that you do to Ukraine, it's because you're anti-Semitic, but with Ukraine, you were totally righteous and we should be America first.
	And the reality is this cancel culture effort towards is only going to cancel the people leading the effort.
	The ship is out of the harbor on these issues politically.
	And if you're smart and savvy, or if you're pro, if you think America should have a more deferential approach to Israel, you're going about it the exact wrong way.
	And you can either listen to those of us who are pointing it out or you can continue to call us names.
	Calling names, you're just isolating and marginalizing yourself.
	So good luck because you're going to need it.
	And I listened to Richard Barris, his show on Friday, and it was amazing.
	And you can disagree with it, but you can't really disagree with the polls, at least the historical trend in the polls.
	This was C. Worley.
	Oh, Worley.
	That was the guy's name from.
	Come on.
	The movie with Christian Slater.
	True romance.
	Best movie ever.
	The MIGA cancel crowd posts about Fuentes way more than anyone else.
	I'm tired of it.
	And Randy Edwards said, 50 of the 50 state constitutions acknowledge their rights came from their Christian God, doing so nearly 200 times combined.
	No state constitution has ever been deemed unconstitutional.
	Okay.
	I mean, I don't disagree with it.
	And then, okay, fine.
	Robert, what do we have on for the menu tonight?
	Oh, so we got the Arctic Frost.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's getting hot in the Arctic Frost.
	I mean, that was the other thing with all of the potential issues on the eve of elections and the Mark Levin group decides to make this the big issue for three days.
	It's like you couldn't.
	I mean, Dinesh D'Souza, same thing.
	It's like Dinesh is complaining about divisiveness.
	Dinesh, quit dividing people then.
	I mean, wow.
	But Arctic Frost, big news about that earlier in the week.
	I mean, really shocking and horrifying, the details of it.
	And I got into a little bit of a tiff with Mike Davis about what's happening or not happening on this.
	And so we can discuss that.
	The Boesberg impeachment, finally, people are starting to wake up to the necessity to do something about it.
	Leave it to politicians to only care about impeaching someone for illicit activity when they're the ones that are the victims of it.
	The SNAP funding went to court already.
	The court's ordering the president to write checks.
	Will that get affirmed or upheld or not?
	Trump appeals his criminal conviction to the New York courts.
	Trump tariffs this week, Wednesday, in the Supreme Court.
	Big oral argument on that.
	Trump-China trade deal.
	What's there?
	What's not there?
	A lot of misinformation and malinformation out there about that.
	Google, antitrust, big loss for Google.
	Another big win for the Justice Department, antitrust division.
	Gail Slater doing God's work there at the antitrust division, exposing the bad actions of big tech.
	This might have continuous consequences in front of a different judge than the judge who let Google off easily.
	And then in a different antitrust case, First Amendment, when is medical freedom and First Amendment freedom, when do they intersect?
	That's pending before the Supreme Court in the Colorado case.
	A big school speech case that went up to the Second Circuit about your First Amendment rights.
	Offensive speech is not an exception, an exemption, as a federal judge tried to claim for a student's off-campus speech.
	The Epstein, some files were finally unsealed.
	No, maybe the government could have got around to that a little sooner.
	We'll get to that in a bit.
	But we're going to find out out of the Chase case, what might be coming out.
	The good guy that covers a lot of stuff out of New York, blanket on his handle right now.
	I remember we've interviewed him a couple of times.
	He's the journalist who covers.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press.
	That's it.
	Yes, bingo.
	You know, Amazon was trying to censor him all week.
	No, no, no.
	So the, yeah, shock, shock.
	The Supreme Court, when does diversity jurisdiction matter?
	When does subject matter?
	When is a case void such that it has to be vacated?
	The Supreme Court's going to be dealing with that this week.
	Amish AI, Amish versus AI data farms.
	This is becoming a more pervasive legal issue across the nation.
	And a couple of bonus cases.
	The Wild Kingdom.
	I used to watch that show as a little kid.
	Is suing, claiming that they own all the Wild Kingdom because somebody's doing some gangsta dog food called Wild Kingdom.
	I had to look up what the product was because I thought it was rap related because it was called Gangsta Dog.
	And I thought it was like a Snoop Dogg ripoff.
	It's an actual dog food.
	We'll get there in a bit.
	Robert, we're going to.
	We got a NASCAR case, antitrust, and a Rose Bowl case about UCLA trying to breach their contractual agreements.
	So a packed docket, along with all the crazy politics taking place.
	Let's start with Arctic Frost, but I want to bring up a video which is so good.
	Is it this one?
	No, that's not the one.
	Oh, come on.
	It's a video of Brennan.
	There we go.
	This one.
	Look at this, Robert.
	Why are you sending it?
	Because I didn't.
	And you misrepresented that.
	We never said it was disinformation.
	We said it was Russian influence operations, which is what they do.
	No, you don't know that.
	Yes, I love the pointing the finger very aggressively.
	When I watched that with the sound off, I thought, fisticus, is that the right word?
	I hope that's not a dirty word.
	Robert.
	Yeah, Brett Brennan is.
	I mean, if they're serious, he should be someone indicted for his decades of crimes.
	I think people misconstrued Tucker Carlson's 9-11 series.
	They're like, oh, he's blaming Jews.
	It's like, no, he's blaming John Brennan.
	He's blaming the Saudis.
	He's blaming the CIA.
	That's who he's saying didn't do their job or was complicit at different levels.
	And that the cover-up was to cover up their complicity or culpability, either in letting it happen or even facilitating or enabling it.
	So a lot of people obviously didn't even watch these series.
	People are coming to these big conclusions about Tucker haven't actually watched Tucker.
	But so the Arctic Frost, which we got full disclosure thanks to whistleblowers.
	This was my, this is how I got to a tiff with Mike Davis.
	Why didn't we get this straight from the Justice Department?
	So now, and again, I don't, I like Bongino, and there's no but to that.
	I know a lot of people are angry with him and Patel.
	And I say be angry with Patel about the Epstein debacle.
	The criticism was this didn't even come from Pam Bondi.
	It didn't even come from Cash Patel.
	It came from whistleblowers who at great risk.
	Robert, so how does that, how does it come from whistleblowers through Congress and not actually get disclosed by Cash Patel?
	That was exactly my question.
	Why did these whistleblowers feel that the Cash Patel would not take corrective action?
	Well, do we know that they, because this is a question, they either did not want to go to Cash Patel for fear of we can only imagine, or they went to Cash Patel, weren't getting any concrete results, and then went to Congress.
	We don't know which they did, neither of which are good.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And Senator Ron Johnson was putting it politely and diplomatically, but he disclosed all these Arctic Frost files when he did at a press conference and said, look, the FBI and the Justice Department are being sabotaged from within.
	And that was his gentle and generous way and diplomatic way of saying, why haven't you fired a bunch of these bums that you're still running around?
	And Mike Davis still on the, you know, Obama's about to get indicted.
	Hillary's about to get indicted.
	There's a super secret grand jury's all working together.
	And I was like, bro, when I see stories like this, I'm not believing your story.
	I think Mike Davis means well, so on and so forth.
	But then he said, well, Barnes, why don't you help out some?
	Hey, I'm right here, bro.
	Hey, ain't going nowhere.
	Happy to help out in any way, shape, or form.
	Well, we don't want your help.
	You know, it was that routine.
	The kind of pitiful, frankly.
	Sad, sad.
	It's kind of like Gad.
	He's given real name to the last slide.
	Gad sad sad.
	It's Gad Sad, I guess now.
	But the goal is to get the over-under at people who send texts to Viva by the end of the show.
	Well, let me just see here.
	Oh, yeah, no, I've been canceled.
	That's a joke.
	Oh, that's from Anton Bill Tong, who sent me some pictures of how they make Bill Tong.
	Because I was eating it.
	I was eating it before the show.
	I have to make sure I don't have any of my teeth.
	It's really good, everybody.
	It's like beef jerky, but better.
	So the whistleblowers, they come out and basically say that the extent of the spying in Arctic Frost was well beyond what anybody even knew, as bad as we thought it was.
	Members of Congress, Jack Smith issuing subpoenas like it's candy at Halloween.
	And it was Boesberg who was signing off on a lot of these subpoenas.
	Oh, yes.
	So it's egregious.
	So you had the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Postal Service, and the National Archives conspiring together to put anybody who was really close to MAGA challenging the 2020 election under criminal investigation.
	They used offices and special agents in charge signed off on this at almost every office, FBI office in the nation.
	Rather than saying, hold on a second, this is unbelievable.
	And let me get into why this should have hit every red flag known to man.
	They were saying if you publicly advocated for challenging the election or contesting it or questioning it in any manner, or if you donated to somebody who did, or if you were a lawyer who advocated it in court, that they were calling that a federal crime worthy of 20 years in federal prison.
	They said anyone who filed an open records request should be under criminal investigation because they said an open records request was a crime.
	They said filing an election lawsuit in court was a crime.
	Filing a petition with your state legislator was a crime.
	Filing a petition for an electoral challenge with Congress was a crime.
	Publicly speaking about the issue, they said was a crime.
	Donating to somebody who supported any of these issues was a crime.
	And they put all of us under massive investigation.
	They stole people's phone records.
	They stole people's financial records.
	They basically wiretapped and spied on him en masse.
	I mean, this was a massive effort to entrap and ensnare and ultimately imprison as many of the core MAGA supporters as they possibly could.
	That scuzzbag, crazy kooky lawyer, Mark Bankston, down here in Texas, who was part of the Sandy Hook plaintiff's cases.
	This is the guy that I said he had a free ticket to the nut house and the Uber driver accidentally dropped him off in law school and that's how he got his law degree.
	Well, his name shows up in these files, sharing discovery from the discovery, which supposedly never was given by Alex Jones, that all of Alex Jones' phone records were being shared with this committee because it appears Bankston was neck deep in this criminal activity.
	Not a big surprise if you understood what the Sandy Hook cases were all about.
	So this was the most systematic systemic violation of civil rights and civil liberties by our Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Insurrection in American history.
	The closest you can get before this is COINTELPRO, but this is COINTELPRO on steroids and at scale.
	And what was amazing is how many FBI agents signed off on this without protest.
	How many Justice Department attorneys signed off on this without protest?
	And the only reason they're doing anything about it now is because they didn't limit themselves to unelected officials.
	They didn't limit themselves to Trump and everyone else.
	They also went after a bunch of senators and they took senators' phone records, senators' financial records, other records of the Senate.
	And here there's a specific federal law that requires that information must be disclosed to the senators being spied on, because leave it to Congress.
	They always have special protections for themselves.
	They don't give to the rest of us.
	All of this stems from the abuse of power of the Patriot Act from day one.
	But the senators found out about this.
	And guess what?
	Judge was sitting in the middle of a bunch of these illicit, unlawful warrants and searches and subpoenas.
	None other than Judge Boseberg.
	The man who happens to get a number of the highly political cases involving Trump.
	What was his family's relation?
	He also had a Mershawn-type connection, family connection to the litigation.
	I'm going to have to refresh that.
	All over the place.
	He's got one, you know, he's got family members getting money from this side, another family member getting money from this side, all big part of one big corrupt scheme.
	But finally, these sleepy senators woke up and realized that the scale and scope of this is so severe, they can't trust what the Justice Department is doing because people are having to blow the whistle without trust, not being able to trust Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi and not being able to trust Cash Patel at the FBI, who's busy trying to get people fired for publicizing where he likes to take the FBI plane, like his own private thing.
	Instead of duty call, it's booty call at the head of the FBI.
	So this is just embarrassing at multiple levels.
	And the fact that you have people like Senator Johnson saying in their very gentle diplomatic way, there's a systemic issue here at the FBI.
	And that's what this reveals.
	And we need to see meaningful remedy, meaningful relief.
	Anybody who signed off on this without protest should be fired because they agreed to systematically violate people's federally protected civil rights and civil liberties by signing off on this.
	And that probably means almost two-thirds of the FBI hierarchy needs to be shit canned.
	This is what has been my consistent criticism against, I think, against Patel, but against the FBI, where Cash comes in and he overcompensates and says, this is what happens when you let good FBI agents do their job.
	I guess, you know, with non-political stuff, they can go and get child traffickers and they can go bust some drug dens.
	When it gets to the political stuff, you have to assume that two-thirds of the FBI have TDS and are out there promoting this type of persecution.
	And Cash is out there saying, these are good FBI agents.
	We don't need a clean house.
	We don't need a restructure.
	They can be rehabilitated if they're just let to do their jobs.
	If you had to guess which way it went, whistleblowers went to Patel or bypassed him entirely?
	I think at some point, and the other thing is all the whistleblowers that had come out before, Kyle Serafin and all of them, you know, Seraphin's his own eclectic personality.
	Seraphin is a man who I've had fights with on Twitter, and we reconciled when it comes to this stuff.
	We don't even have to agree with it.
	I think he was wrong in his treatment of James O'Keefe, period.
	He's got his own issues with James.
	That's fine.
	He's a, you know, I've been in touch with him.
	I had him on recently.
	I might have him on hopefully next week to talk about this.
	He's been on point with it when it comes to the FBI whistleblowers.
	He has been.
	And the other whistleblowers have been all saying the same thing.
	I represent Robin Gritz, and they're yet to resolve her case.
	She was wrongfully terminated thanks to the corrupt actions of Andrew McCain.
	So we haven't seen relief or remedy.
	We haven't.
	The Epstein case is notorious.
	I mean, both Rogan and Musk just kept laughing when they're like, I think the way Rogan put it is the only people who believe Epstein killed himself are people who work in law enforcement agencies or the intelligence agencies.
	Nobody else does.
	And they're both sitting there laughing about how preposterous that was.
	But that was a sign of a broader problem.
	The institution is rotten.
	This is not a case of bad apples.
	This is a case of a bad apple treat.
	And the only way you deal with that is you just got to uproot the whole thing and get rid of it and restart from scratch.
	And they don't recognize that.
	Patel doesn't recognize that.
	Bondi doesn't appear to recognize that.
	And what we're seeing is more and more evidence of this.
	And that we've got a very and you know, people like Davis running around pretending that Obama's right about to get indicted and Hillary's right about to get indicted.
	All they're doing is setting people up for very disappointed for disappointed expectations down the road.
	Because if they can't get this done, why in the world does anybody think they're going to indict anybody serious, significant, or substantial?
	I had a question for you, and it was once not long ago, I was pontificating that the reason why Patel was talking about moving the FBI head office out of the DC area and into break it up, send it out to states, that might have been his way of cleaning house sort of the way RFK was doing it, sort of the way Harmie Dylan was doing it.
	A, it hasn't happened.
	B, I don't think that's the am I being too optimistic, or is that not at all what he's attempting to do by doing that?
	Yeah, it's not clear.
	There were two aspects of this that were disturbing.
	One was just the scale of civil rights violations that the FBI, DOJ, postal office, those people need to be purged.
	Anybody that signed off of this at the postal office needs to be purged out of their inspection criminal investigation division.
	Same with the archives.
	A lot of those people need to be purged.
	What were they doing part of this?
	This is insanity.
	And the uh, is that it leads to doubts about what's happening?
	Why did they have to go the whistleblower route?
	Why, given how scandalous this is, why haven't all these people already been fired?
	The you know, rather than Patel chasing down the guy that's just tracking his plane, which by the way, is not working.
	Kyle Serafin's having tons of fun with this.
	He gets another source and he's showing where the plane's going.
	And he's even, you know, calling it booty call instead of duty call, all that kind of thing.
	These people are in over their head.
	It's very obvious they're in over their head.
	Cash Patel talked big, carried a small stick, as it turns out.
	And I think that's the problem.
	But this is just horrendous at a whole different scale.
	Now that transitions us into finally, finally, they're waking up and starting to think about at least impeaching these people.
	Hold on, before we get there, because it's a legit question from our locals community, it is: is it true that the FBI was created by executive order?
	If so, can't Trump just disband it?
	And if not, what?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, he could.
	I mean, J. Edgar Hoover created it.
	I recommend the hush-hush at vivabarnslot.locals.com for the history of the origins of the FBI.
	It's in the J. Edgar Hoover story.
	He, let's just say, Hoover liked to cross-dress as a civil liberties supporter.
	I take for granted everybody knows that, but Hoover himself was being blackmailed to the very end because he was a cross-dressing person.
	That's what some believe.
	That's what some believe.
	I mean, it was pretty obvious he was gay and that his lead partner was that, and that he hid that his whole life.
	There's some people who still are in denial about that.
	And whether or not, I mean, he had unusual success at the horse racing track, too, which is usually the sign of who used to run those back in the day.
	Maybe that's why he wasn't big on prosecuting people on the wire who ran that operation.
	But I mean, it's just built into these institutions and it shows the need for institutional reform because these people signed off on something.
	Like now, anytime there's any talk of Comey or Bolton or Brennan or any of these people getting investigated, we get leaks like a sieve from the FBI and the Justice Department because how offended they are by it.
	And yet this, you know, those were actual criminals.
	These were innocent people that they were trying to ensnare in a massive trap.
	And they didn't blink twice.
	So it tells you how the ideological bigotry and bias in the FBI is just rampant.
	It's through most of the is if you meet an FBI special agent or assistant special agent in charge, chances are at least two to one that they're corrupt.
	That's the reality of what this Arctic Frost tape reviews.
	And the assistant U.S. attorneys in most key positions throughout the Justice Department, corrupt.
	People in the postal office law enforcement, corrupt.
	People in the National Archives enforcement, corrupt.
	That's the reality of what our justice system has become.
	And you don't fix a poisonous tree by just clipping off a few bad apples.
	You've got to unroot the tree and re and plant a whole new tree.
	And that's what this reveals and reflects at scale.
	And Bozberg was the one who had a key role in all of this.
	And who is it now that finally is clamoring for his impeachment?
	Ted Cruz unfollowing me this week because he didn't like me pointing out certain things about he was hanging out with Reverend Hagee.
	Reverend Hagee helped find create Christian Zionism in the United States.
	He created it right at the time he was caught by his wife with the missionary position with one of his petitioners.
	I was going to make a joke about Ted Cruz texting me to tell Barnes to shut up, but I don't even want anyone thinking I've never texted Ted Cruz directly or indirectly.
	But at least he's right on this issue.
	But it's a little long, a little overdue.
	Some of us have been saying for a long time, it doesn't matter if the Senate will convict or not.
	If you impeach in the House, it allows you to afford investigatory mechanisms so you can find out how did Bozberg keep getting these cases?
	How did he keep getting randomly assigned so many of these political cases?
	You can investigate the connections between him and different family members, connections to various NGOs and other bad faith actors, whether he enriched himself and his family enriched himself of how he handled these cases.
	So you can research how a bunch of these kind of matters, other issues and other cases that you may not even know about yet that might not have been in the Arctic Frost files that will reveal further political contamination of his actions.
	What communications he didn't have in terms of emails or phones with people in some of these cases where he's doing crazy immigration rulings.
	His issue was that he got assigned that emergency turning the plane around one where he wasn't even the presiding judge over the weekend.
	And the question was how he got that case when he wasn't the judge in chambers or the emergency judge.
	And how much ex parte communications was he engaged in?
	So the investigatory tool is useful.
	Being able to broadcast these hearings to the world is useful.
	And then what people forget is, you know, this starts the founding of our country.
	The people who got, as soon as they got those black robes, they started getting power mad.
	And this included the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Samuel Chase.
	And back then, you, as a Supreme Court justice, literally rode circuit.
	What does that even mean?
	It means that you go from one court jurisdiction to another via horse and carriage.
	It was you didn't have circuit courts of appeals.
	You had a Supreme Court judge presiding over a certain part of the country as the circuit judge, and literally it was circuit just because of the physical proxy of the physical area that you would travel by horse and bug.
	So not only that, you often presided over trials.
	You often didn't even have district court judges.
	You had Supreme Court judges presiding over trials directly.
	Chase did that himself.
	And they were weaponizing the entire judicial system to go after their political opposition, which is exactly what Arctic Frost is.
	And it so offended and upset people, Congress realized we got to start using our impeachment remedies.
	And people are like, well, Barnes, what crime did they commit?
	Remember, for judges are unique.
	Unlike the president, unlike other officials, in order to impeach who you have to have a high crime and misdemeanor for, in order to impeach a federal judge, you only need bad behavior or the lack of good behavior.
	Robert, if we're applying the Trump impeachment one and two, it doesn't even need to be a crime.
	He can be indicted.
	He can be impeached for the color of his tie.
	That was Legal Eagles' conclusion once upon a time.
	So even assuming then they have a lower threshold, the threshold that the Dems have tried to make for the president is it doesn't even have to be an actual crime, though I disagree with that.
	I think you do as well, and I think Dershowitz does as well.
	So it can actually be poor behavior.
	He's a federal judge, so it's done basically the same way a president could be impeached.
	Yeah, well, exactly.
	And it's a much lower standard.
	And this is classic bad behavior.
	And Samuel Chase was the first ever impeachment of anybody in American legal history.
	So we know from that precedent, not only that a judge can be impeached, but that he can be impeached for simply politically weaponizing his office.
	That's it.
	That there was nothing else that Samuel Chase was meaningfully accused of.
	There was no separate acts outside like Justice Roberts and others are like, oh, you shouldn't be talking about this for things done in their judicial capacity as if it's an immunity analysis.
	It's not.
	Judges made up that immunity to cover their own rears anyway.
	So putting, but even putting that aside, the judges have been impeached solely and wholly for what they did.
	In fact, the foundational precedential impeachment in the United States was an impeachment of a federal judge for acts he took as a judge.
	And it was simply politically weaponizing his office in a way the Constitution intended not to occur.
	And that is precisely what Boesberg has done.
	That's precisely what a bunch of these judges have done.
	You had a judge in Chicago demanding that ICE report to her daily before she'll give them approval to take any action.
	Even the Seventh Circuit, which is going a little crazy lately, was like, ah, that's a little excessive because it's obvious how nuts it is.
	Federal judge in Rhode Island in the SNAP case, the saying, you know, I'm ordering you now to spend money.
	And Trump was like, hey, tell me where am I supposed to find this invisible imaginary money?
	Well, some of it might be in Argentina, but we'll put that aside for a moment.
	And the judge was like, well, I don't know, but just go find it.
	You got to make sure those food stamps get paid.
	The EBT benefits get out.
	Even though by constitutional Supreme Court precedent, when Congress has not authorized the money, and here they haven't because of the shutdown, Congress has not passed the continuing resolution.
	So it doesn't matter that they've made this an entitlement.
	They haven't authorized the money.
	Courts do not get to override Congress and declare themselves the power of the purse.
	You have another judge doing that.
	And so we've got to start impeaching him.
	And Boesberg is as good a starting point as anywhere.
	Hopefully they'll actually get rolling on doing this.
	We'll see.
	The Republicans haven't been good on delivering so far.
	This will give them an opportunity to do so and to do so in a manner that will help preserve and protect the Constitutional Republic going forward.
	That's fantastic.
	All right.
	Hold on, let me pull up the email that has the list of what we're going to talk about.
	Boesberg.
	Oh, yeah.
	So you're getting into the SNAP funding.
	Robert, okay, so it's November 2nd today.
	The deadline was, whether or not there was a shutdown was lifted.
	It would have been yesterday that it would require the release of a lot of funds to EBT SNAP.
	There's some misconceptions as to what EBT is, it's electronic benefits, transactions, SNAP is something to do with healthy food.
	Some people, see if you can clarify this.
	I'm a Canadian schnook and have no knowledge of any of this.
	Some people are arguing that EBT and SNAP, A, is being used for like shit food, garbage food, that the benefits themselves are being sold and resold so that people can raise monies legally and illegally for other issues.
	There's an argument that there's an ecosystem that has been created, a whole marketplace that's reliant on these EBT SNAP fundings.
	And so it's basically been totally corrupted where the need element of it may have been corrupted by the corruption element of it.
	How much of that is rumor?
	How much of that is accurate?
	So, a lot of it is.
	I mean, Robert Kennedy's has been going to great lengths to clean up the SNAP funding because SNAP was going to crap food, going to sodas and going to ultra-pop processed foods.
	It was basically a huge subsidy to like Coca-Cola.
	In fact, a lot of the big lobbyists are not poor people, right?
	They're for this program.
	The big lobby for this program is the ultra-processed companies.
	Walmart gets a huge portion of its revenue from EBT.
	That's who's really pushing it.
	And how much it actually goes to the people they need has always been an open question.
	There's no doubt some of it goes to illegals, even though it's not supposed to.
	There's no doubt a whole bunch of it goes to refugees.
	Now, there, my view would be maybe don't start a war everywhere else, like say Venezuela, Mr. President.
	So, we don't have you go through that list of all these foreign-born people that are on the snap list, and it's like, oh, that was another war we started.
	Oh, another war we started.
	Another war we started.
	That's why they're all on that list.
	But there's no question that they disproportionately are represented within those groups.
	And then you've got all kinds of scams that take place.
	Yeah, people buy, resell, all the rest.
	Now, that's mixed in with disabled veterans, old folks that are barely getting by as the food costs are skyrocketing.
	That 60% of the people who receive benefits are children, you know, so that working class people that are just down on their luck with food costs spiking.
	So you got a bunch of people who deserve it and a bunch of people who don't, and a bunch of corrupt corporate lobbyists trying to line their pockets in the middle.
	And so the, but either way, this is not the judge's prerogative.
	Not only did he order them to pay money that Congress has not authorized the expenditure for, but he also issued a universal injunction.
	After the Supreme Court said no more universal injunctions, another judge issuing a universal injunction.
	So it shows they have no sense of limits or self-restraint in this respect.
	Now, I think Trump would like, he likes the leverage it provides over Democrats to try to get them to pass a continuing resolution instead of it.
	I think Democrats deliberately didn't reopen the government because they want big turnout on Election Day coming up on Tuesday.
	And so I think that's, you won't see anybody do anything on the Democratic side until after the elections on Tuesday.
	Don't be surprised if they suddenly be like, oh, okay, now we can do a continuing resolution.
	Now we can resolve everything and go forward.
	My guess is sometime in the next week or two, the shutdown ends, at least until the end of Christmas.
	But the nature of the injunctions of the relief sought, I don't understand what the not the relief $3 billion, but there's apparently like an emergency $3 billion that they can tap into if the ordinary funding is suspended during a government shutdown.
	What is the, and I don't know if the reward is relief $3 billion, but what is that $3 billion reserve?
	Sorry, reserve that they're sitting on.
	How did it get there?
	And what is the purpose of it, if not to fund certain programs in the event of a shutdown?
	It's there in general, and it's not clear it's there for this, and it doesn't add up to cover the whole amount anyway.
	So that's the issue, as well as procedural and other administrative issues.
	So that the, you know, they could use some of those emergency funds to go to this, but they don't legally have to.
	And there's procedurally cumbersome issues with how do you decide who to give the money to, which states when you don't have enough.
	So that creates its own.
	Do you give everybody a prorated share?
	Do you only give it to certain states?
	Do you exclude those states that refuse to say whether illegals are getting it?
	How do you handle that?
	And in fact, what Trump said is, hey, judge, you tell me exactly where I'm supposed to go and get the money from.
	And the judge came back with, I appreciate that, but I still don't know.
	But you have to go get it by Wednesday.
	So, I mean, just usurping everything.
	And this is coming to Democratic defense because Democrats are in trouble because it's disproportionately Democrats who benefit from these programs.
	And so consequently, the judge is letting Democrats off the hook for refusing to sign off on a continuing resolution to at least keep the money spent through Christmas.
	All right.
	I said something was going to happen.
	Trump would not, as political leverage, useful as political leverage as it is, he's not going to let snap and EBT recipients even.
	And he doesn't want kids or seniors or disabled people on the local TV news talking about how they can't get food.
	That's not good PR for Trump.
	No, I know.
	And it's also whether or not people should be proud of the fact that 42 million Americans receive these and whether or not there's corruption and whether or not there's people who shouldn't be on them.
	Now's not the time when you cut down that amount by cutting it off and then seeing who really needed it, see if they show up at hospitals and what's the word?
	Not hostels, but.
	What they should support is food freedom.
	Thomas Massey's Prime Act, which would allow people to buy food directly from the farmer without getting federal permission slip first.
	It would solve the problem in the cattle farming market or at least go a long way towards it.
	It would solve some of these issues because you would make food more affordable and accessible for the consumer, healthier as well for the consumer, supporting the local agricultural economy, good for the consumer, also good for the farmer.
	And be able to circumvent the big monopolists, the big ag corporate monopolists, kind of like Tyson Foods.
	Remember, Tyson Foods sounds very similar to the Nazi company, Tyson Company.
	Probably a coincidence.
	That's what some people say.
	And deal with it accordingly.
	You know, that would be a good approach.
	And, you know, the administration hopefully will start to move in that direction to give direct remedy to people with an economy that's getting increasingly fragile.
	But we'll see how they do it.
	But it's hard for me to see the shutdown politics lasting after the election for very long because too many constituencies got to get their hands in.
	As Elon Musk was explaining to Joe Rogan, he was like, so why'd you run into Republican opposition?
	He goes, well, 80, 90% of their corruption goes to Democrats, but 10 to 20% goes to Republicans.
	And they're used to getting that money and they want their peace too.
	So the shutdown won't last much longer is my guess.
	Robert, let me bring up a bunch of chats because I notice I'm going to fall way behind over on Hrumble.
	Hey, Rocky, watch me pull $10 billion out of my ass, says the engaged few.
	Joden 80 says, you better watch your mouth, Barnes, or James Lindy will call you a commie like he did Tim Poole.
	You see that?
	You go Tim Poole a Marxist.
	Also, he's added, Lindsay's busy coming up with a list.
	Anybody who likes Pat Buchanan goes on a list.
	The other thing is, what is it with these people starting to use the same language as the woke left?
	Like whether it's Dana Loesh or that, you know, the Congressman Randy Fine, who I was trying to figure out what happened to Fat Bastard from the Austin Powers movies.
	It turns out he's now in Congress.
	His name is Randy Fine.
	But basically, what's Tucker Carlson in his belly?
	But all of this sort of, you know, why are they using the same language that got Charlie Kirk murdered by calling other conservatives like Tucker Carlson Nazis?
	This is just insanity.
	But Lindsay's complete.
	He's been insane now for at least six months.
	It's weird.
	Tim Poole is a commie?
	Oh, my God.
	Everyone he disagrees with is woke, right?
	Tim Poole's a commie.
	I agree.
	Sometimes I use the term commie in a colloquial sense where I don't, it's not.
	You know, we have fun with it.
	I call him Domi, a little Marxist commie.
	Well, no, he is a commie, Robert.
	All right.
	Decimal threat says taxpayers are the slaves of the lazy.
	Then we got the engaged who says, replace Bondi with Dylan and tell Dylan to find her civil rights replacement.
	Fire Patel, promote Bondino, with the understanding that he's presiding over the dissolution of the FBI.
	Yeah, exactly.
	King of Bill Tong says, did you know we also specialize in imported foods?
	Check out Bill Tong USA for a great selection of imported food items.
	And of course, Bill Tong, BilltongUSA.com, code Barnes for 10% off of Bill Tong.
	Great food, great food.
	Great food, great man, great company.
	Those are good remedies that Trump is proposing, limiting the refugee immigration and prioritizing people who are political refugees, like Biltong himself was from South Africa and others.
	Now, he was talking about the, I don't know about us going into Nigeria.
	I'm not sure about that part, but there's a wide range.
	You know, Nigeria's civil war has been waging for 20 years now, and often the biggest victims have been Christians in Nigeria because it's various Islamic groups that are leading the effort.
	And that is a disturbing, continued problem.
	So I do like the president focusing on those folks as refugees rather than all the other people who are, let's be honest, fake refugees coming here for economic and political association with the Democratic Party reasons.
	What do we move on to next?
	Speaking of the FBI and corruption, Epstein files are now going to get unsealed.
	Okay, so this is in the context of Chase Banks helping Epstein with his illicit businesses without doing their KYC, know your client, without checking to what he was basically facilitating child sex trafficking or human sex trafficking, child sex trafficking in particular.
	They didn't do any due diligence.
	They were just making sweet killings off of fees, off of managing his monies, facilitating the transfers.
	They were ordered to pay some compensation to the victims.
	And now we're going to get, what's the word I'm looking?
	Unsealing of some of the exhibits in these cases.
	My question is going to be: it'll, at the very least, it won't be names of who's on the lists, but it might be people who are receiving, sending transfers, receiving money.
	You say, follow the money.
	It's even more important than following the black book that has everybody from Alec Baldwin to whoever else in it.
	What do, so what can we reason?
	Sorry, go for it.
	I was saying already some stuff has come out connected to Ehud Barak and the Israeli government.
	Well, there's going to be zero question about that because Epstein invested $2 million in Ehud Barak's company, which was a geo-tracking video surveillance video platform company.
	His sister, whose sister was it?
	Was it it wasn't Ehud Baraks?
	It was one of the sisters who was in this company.
	Oh, come on, who was it?
	It was Ghelaine Maxwell's sister who was involved in putting out these presentations about gathering data on the internet from 10 years ago.
	It sounds like basically an incorporated blackmail and extortion ring run at the government level.
	Sorry, so we have Ehud Barak, no doubt we know it already.
	Who else might we see in these?
	I mean, that's what's come out so far.
	I mean, so what's interesting here is, why didn't the Justice Department do this?
	Because the plaintiff in this case was the Justice Department.
	It was the United States Attorney's Office for the Virgin Islands who brought this case against Chase to expose how the banksters were deeply embedded in the entire money laundering, gun running, human trafficking ring that Jeffrey Epstein was involved in for the better part of half a century.
	And the uh, so, you know, why didn't they bring that?
	Instead, they only sought release from records that they knew were very inadequate and would not get to it.
	Somehow, Bondi, I guess, you know what?
	It was probably on her desk and she was just about to get to it.
	So, what you know, that was interesting to me.
	But putting that aside, so the New York Times, Wall Street Journal comes in and they say we want these records.
	And the original argument is, well, these records were not created by the court.
	That doesn't matter.
	If the record is something that would go to judicial access and impacted judicial decision making, judicial access meaning a person could see it in court presented like live evidence, then it is considered a judicial record for the purposes of both the First Amendment, media access, the right to petition the courts for redress of grievances, and the federal common law recognized right of access to the courts, both.
	Because this is all being governed by federal law because this case was brought in federal court, this particular case.
	And so, what the judge did the analysis of was: well, you know, under these circumstances, these records that are exhibits that were submitted as part of the summary judgment process are clearly judicial records under precedent.
	And they're the kind of records like evidence being presented in open court that someone who wanted open access to the courts would be entitled to.
	So the judge agreed and said, all right, it's all going to be disclosed outside of the very limited circumstances, where some third party might have an independent privacy right if they were not, the judge said, not implicated at all in the case.
	Anybody who was, including the financial records, including the email records, including bank records, should get publicly disclosed.
	And apparently, it looked inner city press has been covering this in live time.
	I think Amazon backed off of censoring him, but they're trying to take down a lot of his materials.
	He covered the PDD case, covered the Glenn Maxwell case, covered the Epstein case, covers all the New York case, big New York cases.
	Good guy does very independent, old-school, grassroots journals.
	And we've had him on the show for a sidebar.
	And so this is good.
	We're getting somewhere with getting more of these records and information out so people can have confidence at some level and knowing what the heck happened rather than these records being hidden or have the ridiculous DOJ memo pretend that they don't really exist or don't point to any nefarious direction.
	And maybe that's why the Israeli first crowd was really going crazy this week because this stuff is coming out.
	It's going to implicate a lot of high-ranking Israeli governments.
	Yeah, they've gotten sufficiently ahead of the curve where they're going to say it was a standard business investment with Ehud Barak.
	He didn't know who Epstein was.
	As if the former prime minister of Israel is not going to do the most thorough of background checks, not just on investors in his company, on people whose houses he goes into to spend excessive amounts of time.
	So it's going to look bad, Robert, and it is going to look bad for a reason.
	And it's probably going to implicate some bad people.
	And that, I guarantee you, might explain the reluctance of some to release the files and the vigorous activity with which others are trying to ensure that the files do not become more public than they are.
	And as soon as the house comes back, they're going to vote to petition to release and force the disclosure of more Epstein files, being led by Thomas Massey.
	So we'll see how much longer they'll be able to hide this.
	One way or another, this stuff is going to get out.
	So they might as well get ahead of the curve rather than being behind the curve and drip, drip, drip in ways that will actually make it worse.
	Well, exactly.
	Drip, drip, drip, either until midterms or drip, drip, drip until the end of the first term.
	And then it might result in a Democrat president being elected in 2028.
	I mean, get it out now so people forget about it.
	Maybe not by the midterms, but certainly by 2028, or at least get around it and so you can fix it by 2028.
	Robert, I guess, speaking of courts, we can go to the Court of Appeals with Trump's tariffs.
	And I was in the car with someone.
	They were saying, Viva, explain the tariffs and what's going on with the appeals.
	What is the state?
	We're having oral arguments on Trump's tariffs this week.
	Wednesday before the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And they've extended it.
	It's going to be multiple hours of oral argument.
	So we're going to find out which way they're going to go most likely.
	They don't make a decision, but usually their questions tell you which decision they're likely to make.
	But where were we at now?
	I forgot if the Court of Appeals.
	This is going all the way through the court process.
	And currently, Trump's appealing, an adverse ruling by the Court of Federal Claims that reviewed the underlying court case.
	So it came in the district court case.
	District court said tariff's bad.
	Went up to the federal court of claims, the equivalent of an appeals court.
	I mean, it was a federal court of claims in the D.C. Circuit.
	No, no, it was a, no, I think I got that right.
	Federal court of claims.
	But the appeals court split, but they also struck down most of his tariffs, not all of them.
	So now it's up to the Supreme Court.
	The prediction markets are that he is going to places like Cauchy as I think 60, 61%, they think that he's going to lose on at least some portion of the tariffs.
	It's really, you know, the three liberals are going to vote against him.
	So the question is, does he have two of the six conservatives?
	Thomas and Alito have voiced skepticism about tariff power in the past.
	Gorsuch has, you know, comes from a libertarian, so he's a little bit tend.
	The assumption is he might be skeptical.
	Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett seem more like institutionalists.
	So there's no obvious vote for Trump amongst those six.
	And so the question is: can he get five of those six?
	Because that's what he's going to need.
	You know, four of the six won't be enough.
	And then do they split the baby?
	Do they say these because not all of his tariffs are not before the Supreme Court, only the ones he passed way back in April and just a certain subsegment of those?
	So the question is, do they say those, how broad is his presidential authority?
	I think the way he's used it in such a high-profile fashion that's kind of been all over the place decreases his chances of prevailing before the Supreme Court.
	But we will find out on Wednesday.
	But I was trying to explain what the potential remedies of the Supreme Court are.
	They're not going to say that the president doesn't have the executive power to impose tariffs.
	How are they going to attenuate recognizing a power that they need him to have, but tempering the manner in which he uses it to their displeasure?
	So the Constitution gives to Congress the power to decide tariffs, and then Congress can delegate that power according to Supreme Court precedent to the president.
	And the question is, did he act within that delegation of authority?
	And he claimed that it was a national emergency was the basis of his tariffs.
	And in a national emergency, a particular law that allows that, the law has, that was the first time that particular law had been used.
	There are a bunch of other tariff laws he also used for some of his tariffs.
	Some of those are not even an issue.
	The big one is the emergency law and the way he used it.
	And I think what's going to hurt him the most is he didn't stick to that for a bunch of tariffs that are not currently before the court, but the court is cognizant of it.
	That he's used tariffs for a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with a domestic economic emergency.
	And that, you know, the that's going to, I think, be his political policy hurdle.
	But we'll know a lot more.
	I think it's like four hours, three hours, whatever.
	It's like a long world argument.
	And there's a whole bunch of Amicus parties that are also a participant in this.
	So my own view is I would like the tariff authority to be within the president's prerogative.
	And as long as it's consistent to the congressional statute, and I think Trump had a basis to do so, had he stuck with an economic rationale, an industrial policy rationale, because he hasn't in the court of public opinion, that I think might undermine him.
	But we'll find out for sure on Wednesday because it'll impact everything else.
	I think it's part of why Trump, not the main reason, why Trump did such a generous deal with China this past week, where basically he gave away the store.
	He basically walked back almost everything with China.
	He tried to pretend it wasn't that the case.
	There's a lot of big rhetoric.
	He had to wait for the details to come out over the following 24, 48 hours.
	But basically, he's rolled back almost all the tariffs that he's imposed on him in his second term, rolled back the efforts to do affiliate agencies and control of software technology and a whole bunch of other things because China has an ACE card in the rare earths.
	I think that was 80% of what he did.
	But it probably, his reason for the timing was probably to get ahead of this decision, hoping it helped him to not have that controversy before the court at the time of this decision.
	Robert, let me read a couple of the super chats over on Commitube, which I can't bring up as easily as I'd like to.
	There were only a couple of them.
	Minimize everything on my computer, minimize, minimize.
	Okay, there were two or three.
	One of which was, can you talk about the lawsuit filed by New York Citizens Audit Civic Fund, NYCA, against Attorney General Leticia James, the group which promotes election?
	Also, honorable mention of voter GA lawsuits.
	Okay, hold on.
	That's the Georgia lawsuit boy, though.
	And then we got people like James Lindsay and the like help draw the real populist distinction as between America First and America First, except or America.
	That was from Nessio.
	And then we got one from Hope, Hopeful Pessimist 86.
	People like James Lindsay.
	Oh, yeah, I got that one too, because then the first one was from Benny Boy76, something or other.
	Now, I have to find my window.
	Robert, what was the next thing that we were going to get to here?
	So hold on.
	The other Trump case is he's appealing his criminal verdict now.
	Yeah, but hold on.
	But before we get there, sorry, on China, because I want to remember this one.
	My father has been warning about China since the late 90s.
	And I remember it.
	Now, the problem is my father also said rap would be dead by the year 2000.
	So, you know, the blind squirrel occasionally finds it up.
	And my dad's right about things that require intellect.
	When it came to rap music, he was just predicting based on his own preferences for music.
	Trump is walking it back, or at least seemingly caving, because the rare earth minerals where China either does it domestically or exploits it in other developing nations and has achieved something, if not of a monopoly at the very least, much more efficient access to and bringing it to market.
	Is this sort of like just Trump trying to buy some time so that we can bring this back domestically and maybe get some lithium in America or maybe South America?
	Yeah, the problem is, you know, Japan has been trying to do this for 15 years with very little success.
	So the issue is it's like similar to like, how is it Russia can ramp up their military, but we can't?
	It's because we've got this whole defunct regulatory bureaucratized system.
	Like on Friday, we'll have a sidebar.
	I mean, tomorrow I'll be on with Richard Barris previewing all the elections.
	What are the odds?
	2 p.m. Eastern Time.
	And then on Friday, we have a good Russian that actually grew up in America that knows logistics, served in the military, both sides.
	Slavikman, he's colloquially known.
	And he can get into some of like, why is it we can't like get quickly ramp up our military, but it's missiles or ammunition in America.
	In America.
	It's because, whereas Russia can't.
	It's because of this corrupted military industrial complex process is half of it.
	But the other half of it is this crazy bureaucratized regulatory process.
	The trade, it'll be a near miracle.
	We can't even get nuclear facilities, you know, nuclear energy plants built in like 30 years.
	We're going to suddenly be able to do, because if people don't know, rare earths refinement and processing, it's not the earths themselves that are rare.
	It's the processing and refining of them that is rare.
	And China doesn't care what they do to the environment, despite what some of the pro-China propagandists like to claim.
	And if you want to watch a good China show, I recommend the China show on YouTube.
	A lot of funny, crazy stuff, but also informative and intelligent stuff about the reality of life in China.
	But China doesn't care how much they pollute.
	So that's how they've developed this monopoly.
	The U.S. does.
	So it's like, I keep hearing this, oh, year or two, we'll have all this taken care of.
	I'm like, we've been talking about this for 15 years.
	I just brought up a chat from someone who said, you know, end this global climate crisis bullshit, and then China will lose its edge when we can actually develop locally without having to worry.
	You know, Canada emits 1.25% of global emissions.
	We have some, I know from experience that we have from lost investments.
	We had a good lithium mine.
	I think we still have access to the lithium mine, but you can't produce it in America, in Canada.
	You know, you got to be so nice to the environment that you allow China to pollute exponentially more and think somehow that you're just not outsourcing your own pollution.
	And that's a good transition to our next topic because a person who has come out and confessed that it was all kind of a hoax indirectly is the one and only Bill Gates.
	And why is that?
	Because Bill Gates wants all those AI data centers out there.
	He wants that energy up and rolling.
	He wants that cash flow coming in.
	With as much as Microsoft, like Oracle and Larry Ellison is very overextended into this AI space in a very high-risk way.
	But it's causing problems everywhere.
	It's jacking up energy bills, causing water problems.
	And now they're trying to steal Amish farmland in northern Pennsylvania.
	Let me bring up something real quick for those who might not have seen it.
	I hope that this is it.
	I think this is it.
	Give me a second.
	Bill, this for you as well.
	There are a lot of climates out, the climate announcements out there that look a lot like Swiss cheese, right?
	There are all kinds of holes in them.
	Look at that.
	Is this real?
	We're talking about real money here.
	We're talking about actual dollars that are going to be deployed.
	He's counting them already.
	Real world projects that are going to deliver real-world solutions.
	Well, yeah, I'm a practical person.
	I love the space.
	I'm only involved to come up with real solutions.
	Very, very benevolent.
	I'm very impressed with the sincerity of the companies and the teams.
	They have great people that they're putting into their climate work, advising BlackRock advising on how this is going to reconstruct this financially is great.
	Somebody like Axel or Matal understands the steel business better than anyone and have some great technical experts.
	So, you know, this is a real thing.
	This is the next stage is to get these projects going.
	This might not have been right.
	Governments need help.
	The bottom line is that he effectively recognized that the climate crisis predictions have been wildly off, that the 10 to 12 years we're going to be underwater, wildly off.
	And now it's because they are discovering that AI.
	I was listening to Rogan talking with Avi Loeve.
	It was a scientist talking about the immense energy that is required for AI and that Facebook is building its own nuclear centers and whatnot.
	They're trying to purchase up Amish farmland so they can build the required generators or not generators, I'm sorry, power plant, whatever the hell it is, so they can generate AI.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And in ways that could devastate the landscape and permanently remove these Amish communities' ability to be self-sustaining.
	And they're buying off local politicians to rezone the land and property to try to bring coercive pressure on the farmers.
	So it's going to be, it's an underreviewed, less understood problem at a local level, county level, state level, and federal level.
	All the problems that these big AI data centers are creating for local communities.
	And it may all be based on a pure bubble of hype, too.
	So not only that, they have to replace these things like every three or five years, apparently.
	So this could be a disaster in ways that we haven't thought through.
	But all the climate people that supposedly cared about the climate, all almost all of them are tied into this.
	And people like Bill Gates have already achieved what he wanted.
	He wanted demographic collapse.
	He's already got demographic collapse in most of the world.
	And now he's onto his next grift.
	So, you know, I mean, it's being Epstein files, if it's honest.
	We know Billy Boy's name is going to come out of there.
	Yeah.
	Well, and also just to highlight, I often say, you know, when you look back at Soviet Russia and you say, how the hell did they starve 20 to 30 million people?
	You look back to Mouse China.
	They're going to displace or buy up farmlands, massive amounts of farmlands for digital AI centers, whatever the hell they want to call them.
	And where's food going to come from?
	We're going to buy food from China.
	Like we're supposed to buy our food from abroad, get it from Argentina, which would be good for beef, but it would be better to make it here and make it properly as and then, but buy up farmlands and make it impossible for local farming and then buy your food from China and then see how it comes to be the 20, 30 million people starved to death when you got 42 million already on food stamps.
	Okay.
	That's why no question.
	But the speaking of big tech, we have the Google case.
	We also have on the Trump side, he appealed the criminal defense verdict from Judge Merchon that's up to the New York Court of Appeals this week.
	Let me get a few more of the tip questions over in viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	Squeaky Wheel says Bonte and Patel are only on their Bondi and Patel on their next jobs.
	Big money, what a joke.
	Kira says, predictions for the outcome of the elections in New Jersey and Virginia.
	Sorry if it's been done to death.
	I haven't been able to get around for a while.
	Hope you're both doing well.
	Well, let's just take a quick one.
	Robert, I texted you earlier.
	I said, is it not even worth putting $100 on Cuomo?
	He's 10 to 1 in the markets right now.
	Nope, nope.
	Your UFC picks were good.
	Nine of 13 last night is not bad.
	And some of them were underdogs, but exactly.
	Including the big card, the top of the card.
	Yep.
	I gave that as a free pick on X.
	Yeah, I was not to say I was proud of myself.
	Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but I don't know what's good.
	Like is 50-50 good, but nine for 13 yesterday.
	No, but so I was talking with someone.
	I was looking up the, it's such a simplistic way of viewing this, Robert, is that Saliwa has roughly 13%.
	Cuomo has roughly 33%.
	And Mamdani's got 43%.
	So hypothetically, Saliwa says, vote for Cuomo or we're all going to die under Mamdani.
	Or Saliwa says, let's die under Mandani.
	It'll be good for Republicans and don't go vote for Cuomo.
	There's zero chance Cuomo wins at this point.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, it's a complete waste of time.
	Okay.
	The Cuomo has never been forgiven for being COVID Cuomo by Republicans.
	So they should have, you know, people like Richard Barris were telling them, don't make Cuomo the independent candidate, but they just ignored him.
	And so they would have been better off with Saliwa one-on-one.
	But the Jewish Democratic vote hates Republicans more than they hate the Marxist Muslim Mamdani.
	Yeah, they got an Orthodox rabbi.
	I forget what his name is.
	It started, it has a G in it endorsing Mamdani.
	It's like it's talk about Gad said suicidal empathy.
	But is Gad complaining about that?
	Well, complaining about the Heritage Foundation, the doing something decent, standing up against canceled culture.
	So, yeah, there's basically it's probably going to be a Democratic sweep at the top of the office.
	But I'm hopeful that the Attorney General's race in Virginia goes to the Republicans.
	So at least we get a public rebuke of the Democratic Attorney General's candidate who called for politicized violence against his opponents, including wishing the death of his political opponent's children in his mother's arms.
	And he's running for attorney general of the state of Virginia.
	And after Charlie Kirk's murder, I hope at least he loses.
	But we'll go into, we'll give us very specific predictions, even looking at the Cauchy markets tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern Time on What Are the Odds with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily.
	So that, Kira, that goes to the other half of your question.
	No one talks about how much is spent on free school lunches on top of snap benefits.
	It says, hope for better.
	Kimmy Hunt says EBT is the debit card.
	Snap, along with other funded benefits, are what is loaded monthly onto that card.
	42 million people.
	That's absurd.
	I mean, but Bernie said, it's good that there's breadlines.
	Spam Ranger, can Trump send the rogue judge a bill for the unfunded SNAP benefits?
	Should he sign an executive order implementing this for expenditures unconstitutionally imposed by a court and not Congress?
	Then we got Piscadlo.
	I don't know what this is.
	I don't even know what movie this is from.
	And I don't like, okay, Fuentes had nothing of substance to say in that interview.
	He's such a charitable, chargeable biotch.
	Rich and I were just shooting the shit in the book club.
	I don't want to not read everything in the book club and said that the dude in the closet, when he heard all the stuff on men, women, I felt he had to bring up Destiny and Fuentes doing unspeakable things.
	Oh, that would have been one of my questions if he ever decides to come.
	And I'm not saying that he's gay.
	He's fake.
	Well, there's nothing wrong with being gay.
	R Siki Dolores, Viva Barnes.
	This blows my mind.
	Ignoring IX, ignoring Section 9, already illegal.
	Arrest those men everywhere, soliciting porn to minus.
	Yeah, I'm not going to read the rest of this, but agreed.
	This is for Barnes.
	Boomer Sooner.
	Ah, that was brutal.
	That was brutal.
	Texas.
	Oh, but Oklahoma came in and they got lucky.
	They got lucky to win that game in Tennessee.
	I'll get to the rest of these later, but let me see what just came up here.
	Okay, fine.
	We'll get to the rest of these later.
	Bring it out.
	And next topic, let me go to our list of what we have.
	Oh, Trump appealed that criminal verdict.
	Yes, the appeal, it was appealing.
	The hush money one.
	Look, it's rehashing all of the arguments that we've been talking about for years.
	It's fleshed out in an appellate brief, and we'll see what's going to happen.
	But what is your prediction?
	How does the court system work in New York again?
	This is going to the Court of Appeals of New York.
	Yeah, well, I think it first goes to the Superior Court of New York, which is its appellate court, and then its Court of Appeals is its Supreme Court.
	You know, leave it to New York to have its own little terminology.
	And if the Court of Appeals says, no, we're not taking this, then barring the Supreme Court.
	And the Superior Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But there's actually a federal issue involved because they've raised whether or not the federal election laws preempt the applicability of the local laws to a federal election.
	So that's one of the questions is that they charged him with effectively an election crime under state law, even though federal law already governs and should preempt that state law and not make it applicable under that instance.
	But that's only one of the five issues they've raised.
	The other issues that they've raised is that they included presidential act evidence.
	And remember, that became more pertinent after because the judge had already let that evidence in before the Supreme Court said that's the kind of evidence that shouldn't be let in in a separate case.
	That too would be a Supreme Court potential issue, U.S. Supreme Court issue, if the New York Court of Appeals doesn't make its own correction or the Superior Court fails to make its correction.
	Then you've got the jury instruction, which remember didn't require unanimity on what means were involved.
	That even raises constitutional due process issues, which would also give the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction if neither of the New York appellate courts take it.
	Then they pointed out there's no evidence of any intent to defraud.
	They never did produce any evidence of that at all.
	And then last but not least, they pointed out the judge's complete failure to recuse was a due process violation of its own accord, which also has Supreme Court potential.
	So he'll win on one of these five at some level, and this verdict will get thrown out like it always should have been.
	I see it won't make a lick of difference one way or the other.
	I mean, the conviction itself has no meaningful impact on anything other than having potentially contributed to him getting elected last election.
	Oh, well, he's a felon at the moment.
	So, yeah, it does have potential impact.
	Okay.
	So he can't own a firearm.
	Was it just misconception?
	No, it was felonies, but it was the.
	They took a misdemeanor and they made it.
	They made it to a felony.
	Wild.
	Okay.
	Amazing.
	Robert, look, while we're talking about stupid criminals and stupid law, it wasn't on our subject, but I saw the article yesterday or the day before of that Virginia Democrat senator, Dahlia Attar, who was blackmailing a prominent critic.
	I mean, if you haven't seen the vlog, I think many of you have.
	This Democrat, she was a Democrat, a state senator, Dahlia Attar, in conjunction with her brother.
	What was his name?
	Joseph Attar and a local law enforcement, a guy named Finkelstein.
	And Finkelstein, I missed the meme from Lace is Out Finkelstein.
	The three of them engage in an extortion ring where they installed cameras in a fire detector at a property that one of them had access to.
	And a person who had helped Dahlia Attar on her campaign back in the day, who had since become a critic because they got kicked out of the campaign after a fight, a religious Orthodox Jew having an affair with another married Orthodox.
	And so the three of these guys, Dahlia Attar, her brother, Yoni, it's all Orthodox Jewish community, blackmailing the critic into silence by getting videos of her boning another Orthodox guy and saying, if you don't shut up, we're going to release this and mix up, you know, screw with your matchmakers in Israel.
	It's hilariously stupid.
	And from what I understand, Dahlia's defense is going to be they may or may not have done it, but they did it without my knowledge and like a Tanya Harding type thing.
	Do you know anything?
	I mean, had you heard of any of this before?
	No, I just saw your breakdown of it.
	It's kind of a competitor for dumbest criminals of a kind.
	It's so bad.
	And the embarrassment on the community that is, she's the first Orthodox state senator.
	And this is what she did.
	And this is what seems to be, you know, everybody thinks, you know, you'll avoid infidelity if you go to church, you go to synagogue.
	People are people, and people cannot adhere to.
	It should, well, it is one of the Ten Commandments.
	Keep your schmekel in your pants and out of the junk of other people's spouses.
	It's hilarious.
	I will be watching it to see where it goes.
	But if the evidence is what it is, dead to rights.
	Okay, what do we do here?
	What's that a segue into?
	We got a few other SCOTUS cases.
	We've got jurisdiction diversity.
	We've got medical freedom.
	We got a big second circuit school freedom speech freedom case.
	Google Anthony Trust.
	Okay, actually, before I even forget, everybody, 20,000 watching on Rumble, make sure that you're subscribed and have notifications turned on.
	3,500 communists watching over on CommiTube, 3.8,000.
	Make sure you're subscribed.
	viva barnes law.locals.com uh the the uh freedom of speech that went to the quarter now i'm trying to remember I remember all the facts of this.
	And I remember the decision.
	Second circuit.
	So Court of Appeal.
	This was a kid.
	His last name was Leroy Le Roi or L-E-R-O-Y.
	And if you don't know the race of the people involved, you could be confused as to how there could be accusations of racism.
	The kid who took the picture was white.
	So his last name was Le Roi, which I guess is of French origin.
	What was the university again?
	It was a high school.
	It was a high school.
	Whatever.
	It's a high school.
	The dude takes a picture for whatever the reason of him with his knee on a friend's back and says, cop's got another one, takes the picture, posts it to social media, like within short order, either feels bad or realizes it was a stupid post because kids are fucking idiots.
	I'm sorry, people.
	And the boys are the dumber ones than the girls.
	It's just that the girls have different ways of showing their stupidity.
	The boy's brain is not fully developed until they're 25 years old.
	So he deletes the picture.
	Someone, a real friend or a real someone looking for a trouble, screenshots it, republishes it.
	School gets wind of it.
	The public gets wind of it.
	The school starts getting bombarded with accusations of racism.
	It was like a George Floyd, you know, poking fun at George Floyd, apparently.
	Kid gets suspended.
	And then they take it to court to determine whether or not the suspension was warranted and justified.
	Forget what the lower court said.
	I think the lower court said it was, it was reversed.
	So I think the lower court said it was justified.
	And then the question was whether or not this was off-campus speech, you know, freedom of speech, whether or not it sufficiently caused an actual disruption of school activities.
	And the court, I think it was unanimously, said, no, this does not meet the threshold of sanctionable off-campus speech.
	Although one of the judges really, really weighed his words and said, you know, you could do it.
	You could do it, just not in this case.
	But they apply to the legal jurisdiction, the legal jurisprudence that I'm not so familiar with.
	So take it away from there and say, what is required in order for someone to get sanctioned for off-campus speech because it purportedly disrupts campus activities or school activity?
	It was extraordinary.
	Well, the Supreme Court never should have opened that door in the first place.
	There's a whole backstory with that, including Justice Black, recognizing that it was the wrong decision, but not wanting to offend his wife.
	It's amazing what it influences Supreme Court justices in a decision that's related to this decision.
	It was the old F the Draft case.
	But basically, the rule is the First Amendment extends to any government actor, period.
	So public schools are governed by it.
	There's apparently some school that's looking at trying to deny turning point another public school in Colorado.
	I mean, they'll get sued, you know, and successfully sued.
	So we'll see if they reverse course.
	But you have to protect the First Amendment on campus.
	Because you're on campus, you're given certain justifications that can meet a compelling public interest to limit such speech.
	But it's very limited.
	And the key is generally the speech has to be the kind that's unprotected anyway, a true threat, obscenity, stuff like that.
	Or you can regulate the time, place, and manner of the speech.
	So, for example, a teacher in class that is giving a lecture can say nobody else can speak until the teacher is done.
	That is a time, place, and manner restriction, not a content-driven restriction.
	Here, what the school did, so this kid makes one social media post, somebody else grabs it, tries to make a huge deal out of it.
	The school has like a special session on it, this on it, suspends him for a year, bans him from any, in terms of any extracurricular activities.
	This insane overreaction by trying to impose a speech code because they were offended by something they voluntarily sought out that he had already deleted that didn't even occur on school grounds and wasn't directed at other students.
	So the and their whole ground, they were trying to use this case to establish a speech code for social media on the grounds that if you are a student, we can discipline you for your speech anywhere as long as it's public at all, even if it has nothing to do with school, because it might be offensive to people.
	And being offensive to people is being disruptive.
	And that's a time, place, and manner restriction when it's not.
	It's a content-driven speech.
	You don't get, as the court made clear, at least the majority, you don't have a heckler's video, veto.
	The disturbance has to be by the student.
	It cannot be the reaction to the student.
	Otherwise, you're giving a heckler's video for unpopular speech, the exact kind of speech that's constitutionally protected.
	So what you need in this instance is you need the person disrupting proceedings, like going to a game and running and screaming in the middle of the game and blocking the game.
	You know, that's a time, place, and manner restraint about disturbance, not content-driven.
	You can probably not say you can't use certain crude words in class because of how it might disturb people, but that's within the context of the classroom and the pedagogical interest in the student's education.
	You do not have the right to use the guys that you're a public school student, so we get to govern your speech, control your speech.
	And there, the court made the right decision.
	All right, that's good.
	Now we get to the Supreme Court.
	Hold on.
	We got a couple.
	We got medical freedom speech before the Supreme Court.
	And then we got another one on diversity jurisdiction.
	Oh, yeah.
	Do the diversity jurisdiction, Robert, because I mean, that is on par with gerrymandering.
	When I start reading the words, this is about a case where they were suing in Texas and they're including defendants from multiple jurisdictions.
	And then the question is which state or which court has jurisdictions, which one doesn't.
	I tune out like it's a gerrymandering case.
	I guess what are the principles?
	Why is it relevant?
	And flesh it out because I stopped reading.
	Sorry.
	So some people will just be about when diversity jurisdiction holds or not.
	But the bigger question.
	What is diversity jurisdiction for those who don't know?
	When does a federal court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute?
	State courts in general have broad original jurisdiction over the subject matter of almost anything.
	There's very few limits for a state court.
	Federal courts are courts because those are considered courts of general jurisdiction with presumed jurisdiction.
	By contrast, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
	And that's because other than the Supreme Court of the United States, which has certain original jurisdiction given it by the Supreme Court, by the Constitution, all the other courts are not created by the Constitution.
	They're created by Congress at the whim and the will of Congress.
	And consequently, Congress can take away their jurisdiction anytime they want.
	And so the so they have, they're considered courts of limited jurisdiction.
	And if they act outside of the congressional grant, their decisions are considered not only voidable, because there's a difference between voidable and void.
	Voidable is something a court can, in its discretion, void.
	Void ab initio is where you're going to get it.
	Exactly.
	Void ab initio, which means it was never valid to begin with because they never had authority to begin with because they're courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction.
	So diversity jurisdiction says if the amount of dispute is big enough and the parties are from different states, you can decide that you don't trust the local jurisdiction, the local state court, and go to federal court instead.
	The federal court in the same state, however.
	Yes, correct.
	Okay.
	And that in theory is supposed to somehow be a little bit more reputable and trustworthy than the state court in that state.
	But if at some point the federal court loses that diversity jurisdiction because somebody's added or detracted, distract detracted from the suit, the court no longer has subject matter authority, which means anything it does, including any judgment, is not only voidable, it's void and has to be vacated.
	Now, the federal appellate courts and even the Supreme Court in some cases between in the New Deal era created these little loopholes that said, well, as long as by the time of judgment, you have appropriate subject matter jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if you didn't before then, you can get out of it.
	Well, they keep using that loophole and they keep expanding it and extending it to where now there's a case before the Supreme Court, where in fact, they did not have jurisdiction at the time of final judgment.
	So if you don't have subject matter jurisdiction, it should be void.
	And this is now going up before the Supreme Court to revisit that old exception, whether it should have even been there in the first place.
	But even if they keep that exception, it doesn't apply to these set of facts.
	And they could finally start to enforce the subject matter jurisdiction limited rule, which has impacts for vacating void judgments in a range of cases, due process, limited authority, you name it.
	So that's why, even though it's so technical in its details, it's broad in its public policy impact.
	All right, amazing.
	And then, um, do I want to bring up a video before we talk about this one?
	Oh, I don't have the video, but it was the other news article of the week that I thought was particularly hilarious that made the rounds was a transgender man who identified as transgender while he was taking pictures of women showering and then realized he was a man when he had to sneak out of the women's room.
	Um, you know, highlighting I made the joke that this man is transitionally trans.
	Like, he's I'm trans now, but not now.
	Uh, and then the joke, just writing itself, is that this is what we told were told never happens.
	Perverts, sociopaths, whatever, dressing up like women to you know, get into women's spaces.
	Uh, the court, the decision that's up before the Supreme Court, um, is taught relates to the conversion therapy ban, or you know, whether or not you're allowed, what state was it?
	It was it has to be Colorado, yeah, it is Colorado.
	Okay, uh, whether or not the conversion therapy ban, which is not what you think it is, it's that you can't tell a trans kid that he's not, I'm putting trans in quotes, you can't try to talk a kid out of gender confusion, but you sure as sugar can talk them into it, and you sure as sugar can lop off their breasts and their ding-dongs if you sufficiently confuse them.
	And the question in this case is: the state is saying, well, there's medical consensus that conversion therapy is destructive and harmful, so we need to ban it.
	And the central question is going to be, what is medical consensus?
	Am I missing anything important from this case?
	Well, the credit to Alito, there should be no, this is how they're trying to get around speech bans because it's basically said you're not allowed to talk about whether or not someone thinking they're trans is a mental illness.
	You're only there to reaffirm and support.
	So it's not only a speech code control disguised as licensing control, it's an attempt to create a standard of care exception for imposing a speech code.
	And so basically, the standard of care and the medical experts all agree.
	And since they all agree, then nobody can second guess it or challenge it.
	The way Jordan Peterson was subject to, I guess he's currently faced some health issues.
	So I hope he gets better.
	Same with Scott Adams.
	It looks like President Trump and Robert Kennedy are on top of that and helping Scott Adams get the medication he needs.
	Yeah, for anybody who doesn't know, Scott Adams has got advanced aggressive colon cancer.
	From what I it's a cancer, and I'm fairly certain it's colon.
	And there's a drug that is apparently experimental that has been producing good results, and that's being tied up in terms of its availability to those who would like to experiment with it because they're at an advanced stage of cancer.
	And Jordan Peterson still don't know what the issue was, some serious issues out of the ICU.
	And I brought up a tweet from him because back in the day, you know, when Canada passed its conversion therapy ban unanimously with the support of the conservatives, so-called conservatives, Peterson said basically, so now therapy no longer exists.
	You no longer get to treat your patients.
	You only get to affirm their delusions, their mental illness.
	And it's having the effects that you think it would be having.
	Sorry.
	So yes, it's a speech ban preventing parents, doctors, professionals from actually treating the mental illness of their patients and their kids.
	Exactly.
	I mean, Elon and Joe Rogan discuss how this is an animating issue.
	We're seeing what a social fad it was and what a mania it was, as all of a sudden there's a substantial decline in the number of people identifying as trans that we see with Tyler Robinson.
	It was the trans movement and all the insanity that consumed his partner that likely sent him down a rabbit hole he never recovered from.
	And so it's a serious problem, should be treated as such.
	And Colorado is not allowing it.
	And they're using licensure control to dictate what your speech can be, not just what your medical treatment can be.
	And what Justice Alito pointed out was when they made the mistake, the Colorado State lawyer, of he was like, are you saying that there's a standard of care exception and that when there's a medical consensus, that's when we can go ahead and suppress First Amendment liberties?
	And the lawyer, not being well prepared, was like, oh, yeah, exactly, exactly.
	And Alito said, haven't we done that before, the Supreme Court of the United States?
	Wasn't it a case called Buck v.
	Bell?
	Wasn't it a case that involves supporting eugenics?
	Wasn't the justification and rationalization for forced sterilization what the experts agree on?
	Do we really want to go back down that path?
	A decision that was almost made almost a century to the day, just a year or two short.
	And great points by Alito.
	And hopefully that shows they are going to reject that elite consensus exception to constitutional liberty and restore full First Amendment liberties as well as sanity to our medical care treatment facilities.
	Amazing.
	Let me bring up some chats here because there are some that are on point and that we don't want to fall too far behind and questions we might have missed.
	Oh, don't do it, Viva.
	Sorry, my fat fingers are going to bring the page back, which would frustrate my ability to see this.
	Can the fact that we are talking about rare earth elements as a policy matter be the goal and lead to a policy change?
	We need a massive shift.
	We need a bunch of people willing.
	We've got to scrap and scratch our entire bureaucratized process.
	So it's going to require institutional reform because otherwise, if you go to try to develop rare earths, you'll be in court for 15 years, just like you are if you try to build a nuclear plant facility.
	That's the problem.
	Then we've got over here.
	Virginia is lost.
	GOP distance from MAGA didn't allow MAGA hats and pictures.
	How do they not support Winsom Sears?
	What is your deal that MAGA or she doesn't get support from Republicans or institutional Republicans?
	Oh, because Virginia is dominated by a combination of the old cavalier southern planner class and the government bureaucratic neocon defense contractor class.
	So its votes come from places like Virginia Beach or the Southwest, the mountains of the Southwest.
	But its political power, its donors, its party elders are overwhelmingly elites of the most corrupt, corrosively corrupt kind.
	That's why you can't get populists out of Virginia at the moment.
	And that's why they're going to underachieve and underperform in all likelihood, unfortunately.
	Now, a case that is being prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia and Alexandria that got a good outcome this week was Google loses again in the antitrust context.
	Yeah, okay.
	This I get mixed up between the multiple Google antitrust.
	This had to do with.
	You're violating so many laws, it's hard to track them all.
	Well, no, and this one had to do with, was it search engine results or was it advertising on the platform?
	Hey, I wonder if I say, sorrow, Scotty Bessett, whether we'll get suddenly shut down on YouTube.
	I should have made sure we're still live on YouTube.
	Yeah, they couldn't explain what happened last week.
	It was an encoder with Rumble Studio.
	It just, you know, happened last week.
	No, so I mean, look, Google has been getting slapped with the antitrust rulings, not necessarily on the penalties that they should pay as a result.
	This one, I want to go back to my notes, but this one had to do with, oh, goodness.
	Was it advertising or was it search engine results?
	Advertising.
	Okay.
	And, well, I mean, so they've been monopolizing their grip on the market to artificially jack up the prices of marketing, screwing the advertisers, screwing everybody, but profiting handsomely themselves because of the monopoly.
	This was not even a slap on the wrist by Judge Mehta.
	What was the outcome in this case?
	So the remedy hasn't decided yet.
	The liability is what he found.
	And so let's hope that he gives real more remedy.
	Me credit to Gail Slater, Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division, who helped get this result.
	And we'll see, and they're going to be pushing for a much more aggressive remedy than what happened in DC.
	And this judge's order would suggest he's more amenable to it, given the findings of liability.
	Because what he said is basically there's walled gardens, conversely, are publishers that control the infrastructure through which advertisers buy and place advertisements on websites.
	And what Google did was an unnatural monopoly.
	A natural monopoly is when you're able to control prices and exclude competition, but you didn't do anything to rig it.
	It just happened naturally.
	He's like, that isn't what Google did.
	There's been a long-standing defense of Google in a lot of the corrupt corporate law conservative world who put the con in conservative.
	And this judge pointed out all the evidence showed just the opposite.
	There was nothing about this that was natural.
	It was unnatural.
	And as he pointed out, you don't even have to have the market share control.
	You just have to be able to negatively and adversely impact competition by the way in which you control enough of the market to achieve that illicit objective.
	He said, quote, plaintiffs have proven that Google willfully engaged in a series of anti-competitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher of ads online, which is one of the biggest sources of advertising anywhere in the world.
	And this in turn impacted the websites.
	Remember, if your site couldn't get advertising on it, then it would suppress independent information.
	It was another way in which they engaged in censorship: the control of the ads.
	Google tied its publisher ad server and its ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to protect its monopoly power in both markets illicitly.
	Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anti-competitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features.
	They went to great lengths to basically do in the big tech space what the Rockefellers did in the oil space a century ago.
	No, I was going to say that, but what is going to be the remedy?
	Because once upon a time, we're talking about in the diversion of YouTube, make them divest of these controls over the ad exchange.
	If you took away their power of the ad exchange, you take away 80% of their market power and their censorship power.
	Damn it.
	Now, how do they do that?
	They'll divest.
	So they'll divest of YouTube.
	It'll no longer be part of the same corporate umbrella, but you'll have overlapping shareholders.
	You'll have wink-wink-nudge-nudge friends.
	You'll still have a big deal.
	If they stay strict, they won't.
	That would be the key.
	Make them really sell it.
	The way we made China sell TikTok, though China yet actually hasn't really sold TikTok.
	Bad example, right?
	Ongoing, that dispute behind the scenes.
	But the same logic, in my opinion.
	And Google was always much more pernicious than China was.
	I see over on Commitube, we have Cameron.
	I don't know too, says five bucks.
	Cameron Vesey, just an amazing member of our secret society.
	Cameron, I know that you're on locals, and I wanted to have you.
	We're going to do it.
	I'm going to message Cameron.
	Cameron is one of our great members at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	We were talking about bringing back the interviews, but that lasted for a bit.
	I have to be stricter, but the last few weeks have been just terrible, Robert.
	Okay, Buffalo Betsy says four-ish weeks until I'm done with law school.
	That's it.
	That's the comment.
	Buffalo, law school is one thing.
	Then you got to do your internship, or I don't know how it works.
	I suspect it's the same in the States.
	You got to do your internship, then you got to pass the bar, which the bar is more stressful and more random than law school itself.
	Sadaka says, We have learned that the treatment my husband has been taking is not working for his lymphoma.
	We were sent to see an oncologist at U of M. Uh, there's the trial that just opened up.
	It would require him to be there five days for treatment.
	He would get two weeks off, then repeat for 24 weeks.
	The issue we haven't is it's two-hour drive, two hours to there.
	The treatment will be five to six hours.
	Considering give a give, send, go to help.
	What people do under those circumstances is you know, they had the Ronald McDonald's house, which does it for kids, where they let the people stay near the hospital as they do this.
	But some people need to raise money and rent out a place and just live there for the duration of the treatment.
	That's terrible.
	At Sadaka, we are all fingers crossed.
	Gray 101 says, As part of the Trump administration's goal to bring the Amish to heal after seizing their land and food, how soon can Amish families be prosecuted for public school truancy?
	Andrew Piscadlo, are you effing serious, cash?
	Evidently, flushing out the criminals from under the floorboards at FBI and sitting next to you on the 17th floor isn't cool enough for you.
	I have no patience, especially after Arctic Frost.
	We cleanse the deep from the judicial reform.
	And Barnes, will you be discussing the political violence poll tomorrow on what are the odds?
	We'll get to some more this evening.
	We're going to do that.
	We're going to do that separately.
	Tomorrow we'll be on one of the odds just on the upcoming election.
	And the pre because that will fill up the whole episode because we'll go through New York City, the margin of victory, markets, the chances of winning markets.
	Same with New Jersey governors, same with Virginia governors, same with Virginia Attorney General, broader takeaways, broader signifier, all that deep dive.
	What are the odds?
	Tomorrow and Tuesday.
	And we have three bonus topics left tonight.
	NASCAR, are they violating any trust laws?
	Wild Kingdom, do they get to own the label Wild Kingdom forever?
	And the Rose Bowl is UCLA screwing them over.
	Well, let's we've got to go raid before we do we save the three.
	We'll do we'll do one more here and then we'll do the other two bonus cases.
	Read some of the chat.
	Let me bring this out.
	Read some of the chats that I haven't yet read.
	Did I miss anything on Crumble?
	Um, no, I don't think I've missed anything there.
	Okay.
	Uh, the Wild Kingdom.
	So the Wild, I, these are memories that I have as a child.
	We used to watch the uh, you know, the lions eating the gazelles during Sunday night dinner.
	And my and I don't remember when it was.
	My father's like, I don't want to watch this anymore.
	It makes me, it makes me sad to watch these animals die.
	I'm like, this is nature.
	I was a young kid, like, melding off my dad.
	It's nature.
	It's like, yeah, but you know, watching a zebra breathe its last breath as a lion.
	But then it's like, then they had that, this is a wild kingdom of Omaha.
	So they've got the slogan.
	I presume it's not, I presume, it's trademarked, wild kingdom.
	And a principle of trademark law is you have to defend it, otherwise you lose it.
	And there's a dog food company called Gangsta Gangsta Dog.
	Gangsta Dog, and I think it has two G's in it, which is why I thought it was a Snoop Dogg.
	The Snoop Dog, I'm going to look into that in a second.
	Gangsta Dog is using the Wild Kingdom as branding on their pet food.
	And Omaha, whatever, the Wild Kingdom of Omaha, is suing for trademark infringement, saying this, you know, creates confusion in the market of documentaries on nature, and they have to cease and desist from using, violating our trademark.
	Okay, I mean, first of all, I don't even know how they got Wild Kingdom trademark because it seems like a generic term that could apply to pretty much everything and anything, casually speaking.
	So I got two questions for you.
	What do you think of the lawsuit is one, but how can someone who's sued for trademark violation turn it around and say, well, now I seek the annulment of it?
	Because I know there's a procedure.
	They put out the public notice for trademark.
	Any interested party can object.
	But after a certain point in time, when that trademark gets issued and gets recognized, you can't just contest it and say it should never have been issued in the first place.
	Well, not at this point.
	But the problem with mutual Omaha is claiming that just any wild kingdom is theirs.
	Somebody in chat pointed out was mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, not Wild Kingdom.
	And that's their problem.
	If someone was putting Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, they would absolutely have a trademark claim.
	But what you can't have is something that's so generic.
	When the person looks at Gangsta Dog, they have to think Mutual of Omaha sponsored their Wild Kingdom dog food.
	And the problem is the labeling isn't the same.
	There's no reference to Mutual of Omaha.
	There's no image that looks similar.
	There's no none of it other than just the words Wild Kingdom.
	And traditionally, you cannot trademark something that is that unless that word is just associated with you.
	So, for example, Coca-Cola, even though you could argue that Coca and Cola are pretty, you know, general terms, they can show that the words Coca-Cola is something almost everybody recognizes as their product.
	If, on the other hand, somebody just said cola couldn't go out and sue and say, oh, you're also selling cola because everybody would not associate it with a single source.
	So that's their problem.
	It's too generic.
	So I think they're going to lose this case because when I looked at the image, I was like, you got to have something more here than just Wild Kingdom.
	I mean, that does, I mean, that, especially Gangsta Dog, Wild Kingdom.
	That doesn't sound like Mutual of Omaha, a show that hasn't been on the air since 1983.
	I mean, I watched it as a little kid and I watched the reruns as a kid, but you know, the almost most people don't even know what it is.
	Nothing about that looks like.
	You don't look at that and go, oh, that's from the Mutual of Omaha show.
	Well, I mean, not honestly, I'm just going to say, I didn't think Mutual Omaha was even around anymore.
	Like, that was stuff that I associate with television, not even with the internet.
	Like, I haven't seen it in 20 years.
	Yeah, this I, you know, I would, I thought for a second, maybe like Snoop Dogg would be suing, but this is the, this is their product.
	25 bucks for a bag.
	How big is that bag?
	What kind of dog food is this?
	The gold standard is it kibble?
	Balanced nutrition gourmet dog food.
	That's a gourmet shit.
	Um, yeah, so I don't understand how they, but they can't.
	So their trademark is not Wild Kingdom, but Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom.
	Yes.
	Yeah, it's, it's, it's ridiculous.
	I mean, I'm trying to think of like the amount of times where you hear the term wild kingdom being used very, very generically, descriptively.
	Um, okay, good.
	Let's we're gonna save the rest for the after party on viva barns law.locals.com.
	We're gonna find someone to raid.
	Let me just make sure I haven't gotten anything.
	We haven't missed anything here.
	Um, who do we want to see who's live here, Robert?
	Is it well?
	I think Salty Crackers.
	Is he still blocked?
	I don't know if you can read.
	No, he's not.
	No, who I okay, let me see if Salty's up.
	I occasionally get insta-blocked by redacted because I accidentally put the link in their chat and not in my chat.
	So let's see if I can, let's see if we can raid.
	They have a strict rule against that.
	Let me see if we can raid Salty forward slash raid.
	See, Target channel can't be raided.
	I'm going to call Mrs. Salty and figure that out.
	That makes sense.
	It's nothing to do.
	It's not fighting.
	I just said maybe he doesn't want people rating.
	Okay, hold on.
	Give me 30 seconds.
	Let's see who we're going to raid here.
	Is Badlands up and going?
	Let me see.
	Badlands.
	Well, Badlands, Badlands Media.
	No, they've got an up.
	They're live.
	Okay, we're going to do this.
	This looks Badlands.
	Ah, whatever.
	We're going to go raid Badlands anyhow.
	Unless NeuroDivergent is in the chat and has anyone better.
	Hold on.
	NeuroDivergent just tweeted, but my fingers can't.
	Okay, NeuroDivergent, raid whoever you want to raid.
	Do it.
	We're going to make it random here.
	And Robert, what do you have upcoming this week?
	Just a reminder before we head over to locals.
	So Monday, what are the odds?
	With Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, YouTube, Rumble Locals.
	We're going to do a deep dive on what's going to happen on Tuesday's elections and give you our best predictions.
	If you'd followed them, you would have made money 2018, 2020, even 2020.
	You'd have made money if you'd followed all the pics.
	2022, only time I didn't make money.
	And even then, it would have been almost break-even with the picks we gave out on one of the odds.
	In 2024, you would have cashed in big.
	So, a chance to cash in as well, but also learn and get some additional information and value.
	People's Bundit Daily, what are the odds?
	Monday, 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
	Then, later Friday this week, we'll have a special sidebar with someone who understands military logistics, who understands energy policy globally, who has a very unique experience.
	U.S., Russia, around the world.
	We'll get a special edition sidebar.
	Otherwise, we'll be active in the live chat at sportspicks.locals.com on Tuesday to give back feedback as the actual election returns come in.
	And we'll have a live bourbon with Barnes on Wednesday and Thursday, along with Barnes briefs and discussions amongst the board throughout the week at VivabarnesLaw.locals.com.
	And I will be at the New Orleans Investment Conference.
	And George Gammon is going to be there.
	Matt Taibbi is going to be there among the people.
	We just interviewed is going to be there.
	Yep.
	And it's, I mean, look, I didn't realize there's going to be some real prominent food.
	How the hell do I get the best cities in the world for food?
	Well, I'm going to have it.
	So I'm going to be there.
	My schedule might be a little bit off kilter again this week, but at least not like Switzerland off kilter.
	So I'm out on Tuesday, back on Thursday, and I'm giving my talk on Wednesday.
	And I'm draft.
	I've got it in the back screen.
	Whenever I have, you know, pearls of wisdom I put into what I'm going to present by way of talk.
	So that's going to be on Wednesday, but I'll be out on Tuesday, but I'll still be live.
	It might just might be a couple hours off.
	And then tomorrow I'll be live maybe with a couple of interesting guests.
	But that is it.
	Okay, now I think we've already rated.
	I think we've rated.
	I was going to go raid Alex Jones, but we've rated.
	Oh, we've rated.
	Okay, we rated We Are the Show.
	So enjoy that.
	And we're going to now take the party on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	One last thing before we do it, everybody.
	Well, you know what to do.
	Go check it out if you want to send stuff.
	We've got a P.O. box, Viva Fry for merch, and whatever.
	Okay, now we're going to locals.

▲