Viva & Barnes - Kash Patel's Jacket-Gate! Pfizer Whistleblower Qui Tam on Appeal! Meanwhile in Canada! AND MORE!

Dec. 3, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

01:09:20

Kash Patel's Jacket-Gate! Pfizer Whistleblower Qui Tam on Appeal! Meanwhile in Canada! AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen of the interwebs, many of you might be saying, what is this?
	Am I seeing double four vivas?
	I already saw this video today, and you would be correct.
	But there's going to be a number of people watching this afternoon who did not tune in to our morning stream.
	And I will refresh their memories with a little summary of the Brooke Jackson Key Tam lawsuit that was pleaded this morning before we cover that, among other things today.
	Behold.
	This is from the BMJ Journal.
	My name is Brooke Jackson.
	I was fired in September of 2020 for being a whistleblower.
	I was working on Pfizer's phase three total trial on their COVID-19 vaccine.
	Go on.
	You had me at whistleblower in Brooke Jackson.
	My first day on the job was the 8th of September.
	And from the very beginning, I noticed irregularities.
	It was a shame that were questionable.
	I would bring up the concerns to my managers.
	And it was always, we're understaffed.
	We're really trying hard to, you know, make this work.
	I'm going to pause it because everybody who watched this morning will find this a little tedious if I go through the entire six-minute mini documentary explaining who Brooke Jackson is and what she whistle blew in respect of the Pfizer clinical trials conducted by that company with the name of Z.
	Just to give you that brief intro so that when I talk about what happened earlier today at the oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal on Brooke Jackson's what's known as a KETAM lawsuit against the Pfizer for an, in theory, for and on behalf of the federal government.
	A KETAM lawsuit is basically it's a citizen initiated fraud lawsuit.
	Let me just summarize here a little better.
	Private citizen whistleblower files the lawsuit on behalf of the government to report fraud against the government.
	Now, so everybody understands that the way this works and why I'm particularly interested in this case is that Robert Barnes is one of the counsel, one of the attorneys in this file.
	Brooke Jackson is one of the wonderful members of our above average viva barneslaw.locals.com community.
	Brooke Jackson early on blew the whistle on the bullshit Pfizer trials in the context of their COVID jab.
	And within six hours of basically blowing the whistle, gets fired by the company conducting the trials for and on behalf of Pfizer.
	Brooke Jackson files a KTAM fraud lawsuit against Pfizer for and on behalf of the federal government because they're not doing it under Biden, because as the evidence might show and as the argument might go, the Biden government was in on the fraud.
	Everybody was in on this, making billions of dollars for Pfizer.
	So Brooke Jackson blows the whistle, gets fired, brings a fraudulent false claims act against Pfizer for and on behalf of a government that won't initiate it themselves, and carries on with this lawsuit for several years.
	Now, under a KeyTam lawsuit, the government can come in and basically kill the lawsuit.
	They can come in and dismiss the lawsuit.
	They can take charge of the lawsuit.
	Thank you very much, Brooke Jackson, for your whistleblowing.
	Thank you for the years of work that you've done in this file.
	We shall take it over right now.
	And upon taking it over, they dismissed it.
	So understand that, because we're going to get into the summary of the oral arguments that were presented this morning.
	The government comes in after Brooke Jackson has invested years, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, at least in legal fees or legal time.
	The Biden administration comes in after Brooke Jackson has been toiling for years trying to pursue fraud claims against Pfizer, which we all believe, I believe in my humble opinion, committed fraud in the context of those trials.
	They committed fraud in that Maddie DeGarry, the young girl who was part of the children's trials, suffered transverse myelitis and they wrote her off as having a functional bellyache.
	They falsified the data so they could push through that emergency toxic jab and they screwed up on the manufacturing processes and they committed fraud and they were enriched to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars in government contracts.
	Biden comes in, takes over the lawsuit and dismisses it.
	Brooke Jackson now has to plead to the Court of Appeals to say, reinstate my lawsuit or allow the dismissal that the government did to be without prejudice because the government did it with prejudice, meaning Brooke Jackson cannot amend and refile.
	At least allow it to be without prejudice so that we can refile this lawsuit under the current administration under Trump's administration, which presumably, I say presumably, has a different view of the COVID vaccs.
	Pfizer, which has the history of having paid the largest criminal civil settlements in pharmaceutical history, if not in corporate history.
	And Brooke Jackson via Warner Mendenhall and Robert Barnes have to go to the Court of Appeal on their own dime, on their own time, to try to get the courts to reinstate Brooke Jackson's Ketam lawsuit so that she can pursue fraud on behalf of the government against Pfizer because Pfizer was supposed to provide, was supposed to produce a safe and effective vaccine that prevented the transmission of the COVID virus, and they produced none of those three.
	We listened to oral arguments live this morning.
	If you were there, we had like a good 2,500 people cross-platforms listening, and it's kind of encouraging that people are actually taking an interest in the law, but I suspect a lot of them were members of this community and also have the interest that we've been covering it for a while.
	And Barnes is in the file.
	So you have Warner Menderhall and Barnes, although Mendenhall was the one pleading today for and on behalf of Brooke Jackson, trying to convince the Court of Appeal to reinstate the lawsuit or at least allow the dismissal to be without prejudice so that she can refile.
	You have the attorney for the government, I forget her name.
	I think her name was actually Smith, which was kind of funny, arguing that the government's decision to dismiss the charges, take hold of the case and dismiss the suit, is itself, in and of itself, the good reason, the good cause to kill the lawsuit because the government said so.
	And then you had the attorney for the company that was conducting the trials that fired Brooke Jackson within six hours of her having blown the whistle, telling the Court of Appeals that their contemporaneous firing of Brooke Jackson with her going public or notifying the FDA of the chicanery going on in the trials was just a coincidence and that she did not even prove that it was retaliation for her blowing the whistle on the bogus Pfizer trials.
	I hope that was not too much of a tedious summary and I hope you can appreciate what's going on with that.
	So what ends up happening today is we had the oral arguments, 20 minutes, the government took like five or seven and then the company doing the trials took five or seven.
	I couldn't find the recording yet.
	We watched it live and I don't want to play me reacting to it in real time.
	Suffice only to say that Warner Menderhall, Mendenhall, the lawyer for Brooke Jackson, came on and said, this case is of public interest.
	The government cannot come in and say it's the good cause to dismiss this case is because the government says so when the government, and this is the Biden administration, might have been in on the fraud.
	And this was actually a question that the Court of Appeals, one of the judges asked, like, well, they asked it of the other tenants.
	Like, you think the good cause required under law is you just deciding so?
	And why even specify for good cause in the law or in the jurisprudence if that is just your own discretion?
	Mendenal properly suggested: well, the government that took hold of this suit years after it was instituted and then dismissed it might be in on the fraud.
	They're not going to investigate their own fraud.
	Then you get the arrogant lawyer for the government, which is Trump's government.
	This is what's pissing me off about this entire thing.
	This is a lawyer for the government.
	I don't know who appointed this lawyer.
	She might have, you know, might be a TDS afflicted regional attorney.
	Comes in and says, we dismissed this lawsuit because we decided that it was the good cause to dismiss this lawsuit.
	And there's nothing you can do about it, Court.
	Why the hell anyone in Trump's administration would be defending that position is a good question that I've asked.
	And I'll get to some of the hypotheses in a second.
	And then the counsel for the company doing the trials came in and said, yeah, they didn't even prove retaliation.
	We just fired her within six hours of her contacting the FDA.
	It was a big coincidence.
	She was doing things that we didn't like, like taking pictures, also known as documenting and whistleblowing.
	And she was accessing confidential information because it was accessible to everyone, including the janitor.
	So that's what's going on.
	Dred Robert over on Viva Barnes Law with a $1 tip says Trump is on Pfizer's side.
	Well, that might be part and parcel of the concern, and it might not be an irrational concern.
	And so I took to Twitter after having watched this and commentated, and I said, say, clip this because some parts of this hearing are very, are very relevant.
	I put a question to Twitter, and I want to focus on some of the answers to this.
	So we got, get out of here, Grock.
	I don't want you in there.
	Get out.
	Why is the Trump administration maintaining the Biden administration's dismissal of the whistleblower fraud lawsuit against Pfizer?
	Does anyone have a legitimate answer?
	Then we got, is it even on their radar?
	Maybe he doesn't know about it.
	Maybe Pam Bondi doesn't know this case is going on.
	Something tells me she does as having been former counsel for Pfizer in 2021 during the COVID period.
	Something tells me she might have gotten a call saying, don't intervene with the Biden intervention to dismiss the lawsuit.
	Now, here, this is a rural revival.
	I can't vet the accuracy of this, but I do know that some of it's true.
	And we've got, we've got a, you know, kind of looks like one of those conspiracy theory memes.
	The bottom line is what we do know is of something of a history of Susie Wiles in the pharma industry and a definitive history of Pam Bondi with Pfizer specifically.
	This is a big problem.
	I mean, this is the type of thing where it's yet another example of Pam Bondi, and I'm not calling her Pam Blondie.
	My hair is a little bit blonde and I don't want to be a hypocrite.
	Pam Bondi, with a definitive conflict of interest with Pfizer, because she actually represented them, actually of counsel, where she got paid about a quarter of a million dollars in 2021.
	And she knows the dirt.
	She knows the skeleton.
	She in law could not actually ever Ever act against Pfizer ever again for the rest of her legal career.
	It would be an ethical conflict of interest because you cannot act against someone who you had as a client previously, because you know things that you would have only known that would have only been disclosed to you by virtue of your solicitor-client relationship with that person, with that company.
	So you can't then go and act against them because you would have knowledge that you would have only acquired because of your privileged relationship with them.
	So in law, she's conflicted out of any form of action adverse to Pfizer.
	But here we have Brooke Jackson, I say a patriot, I don't often use that word, but an actual lifesaver, begging the Court of Appeals to undo a Biden-era decision to take over this case and dismiss it.
	And it reeks of corruption.
	It reeks of something that is going to sow discord or at least chisel away at the support of the populist base that got Trump elected, the coalition that was brought in with Maha and RFK Jr.
	And there's no good reason for it.
	And so if I'm putting this on blast, which I'm doing it, because we're covering it again during the afternoon show, it's for constructive criticism purposes.
	Maybe Trump doesn't actually know about it.
	Maybe this information is not being brought to his attention because the people that he's brought in via Susie Wiles are not bringing it to his attention.
	Plausible deniability, or it's just one big ass machine and you can't know each and every cog of that machine.
	But I've been harsh on Pan Bond, I don't say harsh, I've been fair, critical of Pan Bondi.
	She has, on at least three occasions now, three litmus test issues, Second Amendments, freedom of speech, and medical autonomy, pursued, I say four now, financial, Bitcoin, pursued Biden-era persecutions.
	She did not get involved in the Dr. Kirkmore trial until it was a week underway, until there was substantial pressure to do so.
	She did not get involved in the Biden-era persecution of Douglas Massey, prosecuted and convicted for a meme.
	Luckily, the Court of Appeal there overturned it.
	She did not get involved in the persecution, the Biden-era crypto persecution of Roger Veer.
	And she did not get involved in a number of Second Amendment issues.
	And not only did she not get involved in some, she took an adverse interest in others.
	So, and I think she's fucking everything up with the FBI as well and giving them a bad reputation and undermining their credibility with people who have been their staunchest supporters from the get-go.
	So, that's that.
	That's what's going on with the Brooke Jackson Key Tam appeal.
	It was pleaded before the Fifth Circuit earlier today.
	I think it went very well for dismissing the dismissal or allowing for the dismissal without prejudice.
	If you want to go watch it, check it out.
	It's the stream before this one on today, December 3rd, 2025.
	Anno Domini, the year of our Lord, and put it on blast, bring it to Trump's attention, and let's see a little bit of justice.
	Past his prologue, if it's happened before, it'll happen again.
	And if it happened once, it's happened more than once.
	The companies, you got to look at this here: Johnson and Johnson criminal fine.
	Let's see what their situation was here.
	Listen, just go do this by way of exercise.
	Johnson and Johnson has faced several significant criminal fines, most notably a $485 million criminal fine as part of a larger $2.2 billion settlement for off-label marketing and kickbacks.
	Yeah, well, better trust them with them with the COVID jab.
	Pfizer criminal fee.
	In 2009, Pfizer paid a criminal fine of $1.195 billion.
	This is Dr. Evil level quantum.
	$1.195 billion as part of a record-breaking $2.3 billion settlement.
	Why?
	It's them from allegations that Pfizer illegally promoted certain drugs, including painkillers, Bexdra, for unapproved uses, leading to a guilty plea, subsidiary million dollars in fraudulent claims submitted to government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
	I'm sure they've learned a lot in 15 years.
	They've learned how to get away with it.
	And that if you make enough money, the criminal penalty is just the cost of doing business.
	Now, let me see.
	I think, I think Moderna is the only one that has not yet paid a criminal fine.
	That's the other third company in the trifecta of COVID jabs.
	And I think that's only because they've never actually produced a product until this.
	There's no public record against Moderna, but other pharmaceutical companies.
	You know why Moderna hasn't yet paid a criminal fine?
	Because the COVID jab was the first product they ever brought to market.
	As far as I know, let me just fact-check myself in real time.
	Was the COVID shot the first products Moderna ever brought to market?
	And I'll fact-check myself in real time just to make sure it's yes, the COVID-19 was the first product Moderna brought to market, receiving its holy shit, unbelievable, eh?
	No, it's corruption to the core.
	Like, it's not turtles all the way down, people.
	It's corruption all the way down.
	And I am not doing any of this for clicks for engagement.
	I could probably get better access by stroking the egos and petting the backs and licking the boots.
	I'm doing this because if America fails as a nation, there goes the last bastion of hope for democracy in this world that we know.
	That's the summary, people.
	King of Bill Talk, did you not know that?
	What I heard is like, oh, yeah, Moderna, they have never paid a criminal fine.
	Yeah, they've never made a product before COVID.
	It's amazing.
	All right, let's so we're going to cover some FBI stuff.
	I mean, Kash Patel.
	You can call me whatever sycophant you want about defending steel manning Dan Dongino, what he's been doing at the FBI.
	It's not all been bad at the FBI.
	I just think that the badness that there has been falls more on Kash Patel, mostly on Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi.
	And I know that, you know, in as much as I know, Dan, he just wants to do good.
	He wants to do good by the country.
	He wants to do good by his conscience and he wants to do good by God.
	And he is the second man in power at the FBI, which is the fourth person in power at the DOJ.
	And even when I had on Kyle Seraph and he said, you know what, as a good deputy director, if he wanted to be righteous and if he didn't like what he saw, or if he was frustrated, he could do what a previous deputy director did and resign.
	We'll get there.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	Viva Fry, former Montreal litigator turned current Florida Rumble.
	If it looks like I'm actually a little bit slower today, I've got a wicked migraine.
	And I don't know if it's just generalized stress, if I ate something, if I'm still pissed off about my bowling match yesterday, I bowled.
	I'm going to say it out loud because it's the type of shame that I need to improve.
	I bowled a 116 in my first game.
	Now, I did go on to bowl a 168 in the high 160s in my second game and 199 in my third game.
	But I missed a spare or I missed the last three pins of my last shot in the last game.
	So I didn't get to break 200.
	And then we ended up losing that match by three pins.
	Where had I hit my three pins?
	We at least would have tied.
	116.
	I told my wife, she's like, Viva, I could have beaten you in that game.
	So I might have to either get a bit of a lighter ball.
	I might need to get a cortisone shot in my bursitis of my shoulder, but I got to do something because it's an embarrassment to be a drain on our team.
	I'm better off not playing and having my average minus 10.
	Okay, so what was I saying?
	Yes, I've got a bit of a migraine.
	And it might just be the state of the world that's giving me a migraine.
	I was talking with someone, someone said, like, what do you do to relax from all of this stuff that you're immersed in day in and day out?
	And I was like, nothing.
	I go for a jog, listen to Joe Rogan while going for a jog, and that just makes me even have a bigger headache.
	Get some performance-enhancing drugs.
	Dude, if you need performance-enhancing drugs for bowling, you're a bigger loser than someone who bowls a 116.
	All right, let's get into today's show.
	Or at least let's get into part two of today's show.
	No, first things first, this is what I wanted to do.
	Roostang says, Palin 2028 retweeted Robert Barnes at Barnes Law.
	Notice that Bongino and Cash don't have the guts to face even the slightest skeptical audience or interview.
	Well, this might have to be the segue into the part of the show.
	T-Beck says, Viva, could you please interview Mark Sexton?
	I'm betting the same corruption happened in Canada.
	Mark Sexton, he's not the guy that used to do the voices for the World Poker Tour.
	I'm joking.
	It couldn't be him because Sexton actually passed away and Trump's on the side of Pfizer.
	Perfect segue to get into today's story, which is Kash Patel.
	There is an old expression.
	If you're explaining, you're losing.
	There's the other expression, man, just get your story straight.
	The simpler, the better.
	And if you need PR, I mean, I couldn't even do it.
	You couldn't pay me for PR, then I wouldn't be able to criticize.
	There were a whole hell of a lot better answers to this.
	It's not even a softball question asked by, what's her face on Fox News, Laura Ingram.
	This is what people say that Fox News is, you know, in bed with the administration.
	It's fine.
	I mean, that's fine, but you could do a better job hiding it.
	There's people who rightly say if Fox News gets too critical, they'll lose their exclusive access to Trump's administration.
	That's probably true, too.
	I won't have any illusions of grandeur.
	I'm not sure if anybody says I won't go.
	I won't do an interview with Viva because he might actually ask some hard questions of the administration, like why in the hell is the Trump administration pursuing the Biden-era dismissal of the key town lawsuit against Pfizer?
	I would ask that question.
	I would actually have some meaningful follow-ups to it.
	There's softball journalism, and then there's lobby journalism, and then there's oiled up back massage journalism.
	And that's what we saw here from Laura Ingram.
	And then she posts this and says the jacket story was 100% false, but here's what's true.
	And then she cites the answer by Kash Patel.
	I'm just going to play this.
	I'm going to play it without commentary.
	And then I'm going to commentate because that's what I do.
	You mentioned the thing about the patches and the gossipy stuff, which I know you laughed it off on Twitter, but on X, but they're saying, oh, he refused to get off the plane in Utah after Charlie Kirk's assassination because he wanted a better fitting FBI raid jacket.
	Is that true?
	And does fashion really make the man, Cash?
	It's 100% false, as you know.
	Look, Laura, sadly, I was at 9-11 at Ground Zero in New York City on 9-11 because I was a White House representative honoring those victims and their names being read.
	You are very familiar with that.
	Then we made the immediate decision after Charlie got shot in the neck to fly to Utah unexpectedly to lead the manhunt to find the perpetrator in less than 33 hours because the FBI cut video, put it out in a press conference, and these people are worried about what I was wearing and what patches I was wearing.
	I was honoring my men and women at the FBI.
	One of my agents handed me a jacket and said, hey, boss, you should probably wear this.
	We're going to the command center.
	I said, I'd be honored to wear that.
	And then another one handed me the SWAT team badge of the unit that was protecting the area where Charlie was assassinated.
	I wore that with pride.
	These people can talk about my appearances all they want, but look at the results.
	The FBI, this FBI, my FBI, the one that Dan and I are building here under President Trump, is succeeding in ways that no FBI has ever done so before.
	So the institutionalists and the anonymous reporters from the swamp DC bureaucracy are the ones we are crushing.
	And that's how I know we're winning.
	And if Eric Swallow wants to come online and talk about what jacket size I wear, I'm happy to send him a women's medium so him and Fang Fang can go out again.
	So I'm not going to be critical for the sake of being critical.
	I'm just, these are the observations that I would have, and it would have been the same regardless of who it was.
	If you watched the behavior panel, I'll bring this out for a second.
	If you had watched the behavior panel's analysis of the time when Pam Bondi was asked the question about the Epstein files, I forget exactly what it was, but it was that famous answer at the table where she said basically that it was child pornography and it was despicable and she's not going to release CP to the internet, which nobody was asking for.
	So on the one hand, it was sort of a strawman characterization of what the requests were.
	But the behavior panel picked up on what I think a lot of people should appreciate as distractive elements from an answer.
	The overemphasis on appealing to emotion.
	And some sense, in some sense, a bit of not say victimhood, but sympathy.
	Where the answer is, bear in mind, by the way, their answer was it's 100% false, yet it's true because he didn't have a jacket.
	Someone gave him his jacket and someone gave him a patch.
	To remind everybody that he was at the 9-11 memorial, then he comes back to Charlie Kirk assassination and the way he emphasizes the word assassinated the second time he comes around to it.
	It's, first of all, the leading question from Laura Ingram, it's giving the answer.
	This rumor, gossipy stuff.
	You know what the answer should have been?
	It was a tremendously difficult day.
	I didn't have my vest and I wanted to show respect to the men and women in uniform and show up with a vest.
	Yeah.
	And anybody spinning it differently is spinning it for nefarious purposes.
	But to get into a minute and a half diatribe that's all over the place that ultimately confirms the essence of the story, which is that he didn't have a jacket and refused to get off until he had one, that could be bad if you don't like cash.
	That could be good if you do like cash.
	Yeah, he refused to get off under professional circumstances without being in proper uniform.
	And he didn't have it because the day was hectic.
	The part at the end about the Fang Fang, and then you get people on the internet.
	Oh, yeah, he really owned, he really owned Eric Swalwell.
	No FBI has ever done so before.
	So the institutionalists and the anonymous reporters from the swamp DC bureaucracy are the ones we are crushing.
	And that's how I know we're winning.
	And if Eric Swalo wants to come online and talk about what jacket size I wear, I'm happy to send him a women's medium so him and Fang Fang can go out again.
	It's hilarious.
	Throwing shade at journalists who were reporting that story, Miranda Devine, is also not going to score any points.
	I put out a point.
	We're going to get to the real journalists.
	And now everybody's complaining that the people with access to the Pentagon, the White House, are all sycophants.
	They're not, incidentally, but we'll get there in a second.
	Miranda Devine put out a tweet.
	No, no, no, sorry, it wasn't.
	It was Susan Crabtree who put out a tweet.
	And I responded to it.
	I want to read her tweet first because it's important.
	And no judgment.
	I'm not naming anyone in particular.
	The idea that criticism is always bad is a sign, it's an element of weakness in a human.
	In fact, sometimes compliments are useless.
	Being told what you're doing right is useless.
	Maybe I'm a bit of an asshole and maybe I was a, I don't know, I wasn't a bad, I won't say boss when I had my own law firm.
	I was never good at the compliment sandwiches.
	I don't think people need to be told what they're doing good to pad their egos or to prop them up for the criticism.
	And maybe I'm a jerk.
	And maybe that is the way to do it.
	Maybe psychologically there's a good reason to do it.
	Susan Crabtree writes, beware of influencers masquerading as journalists who lack basic ethics and never criticize the officials they're supposed to be covering lest they get cut off.
	That great sucking sound in swampy Washington is not journalism.
	It's ass kissing for access.
	You don't get to call yourself a journalist and engage in it constantly.
	It was disgusting during the Biden administration and it's disgusting now.
	Do your jobs.
	Nough said.
	If anybody doesn't know who Susan Crabtree is, she was doing some amazing coverage of the Butler assassination, for which we still have no meaningful answers.
	That's a link to Susan Crabtree's tweet.
	Now, if I may indulge myself just so that I don't mischaracterize or badly phrase my response to that, I can't really find it.
	It doesn't matter.
	No, you know what?
	I'll get it.
	Let me get it so that I don't screw up my thoughts because when I write, I take more time to think than when I speak by definition.
	Here, I replied to Susan or quote tweeted Susan.
	They say, Susan's right.
	People reflexively accuse others of being paid.
	There's other methods of compensation to ensure an absence of scrutiny, invites access to information, interviews.
	You mentioned like one of the interviews with Fox News where I forget her name now, I forget who it was.
	The pushback was good against Donald Trump on the H-1B visas.
	It was good because the blowback was good.
	And I think there's going to be a change in policy that's going to not please Trump's base, but encourage those who elected Trump on the basis of America first.
	But Fox News, if they get too critical, they're going to lose these interviews.
	And people have to understand this.
	Every government on earth, past, present, and future, requires relentless scrutiny.
	They've been corrupted, not because the leaders are necessarily corrupt, but because when you're dealing with an organization that big, unless you know each and every person in it, there will be bad people in it who are there for personal gain, personal greed, personal corruption, or sabotaging an administration that they don't like.
	I say every government suffers from governmental incompetence, and every government is only as strong as the weakest link.
	And people need to understand that.
	Like you go to the bank, and if they can't set up a bank account properly, it doesn't matter if you're dealing with Bank of Montreal or Citibank or Bank of America.
	They are only as good as their weakest link.
	And that's it.
	You give credit where credit is due, but failing to scrutinize and failing to criticize an administration that you want to succeed is a surefire way to ensure that they fail, that they get sabotaged by bad faith players internally, that they don't know when they're getting duped, tricked.
	And you keep them in check from the potential corruption of their own power.
	But that interview, Kash Patel's interview on Fox News, is not doing anybody any favors.
	The long-winded responses that Cash is giving on the internet are not giving anyone any additional encouragement.
	The detailed memos about progress, people have to understand this as well.
	I mean, if I could give any constructive advice to Bongino and Patel for their social media, it's good to be proactive and it's good to be engaged on social media.
	But I was saying it earlier today.
	Who the heck was I saying it to?
	You know, to be long-winded on certain answers, but then silent on other answers that invites skepticism.
	That invites questions like, okay, you've provided a very, very thorough detail about the number of arrests, the number of traffickers jailed, the number of people on the wanted list captured, whether or not that's entirely and totally attributable only to this FBI.
	Set that aside, it's good work.
	But you're totally silent on the January 6th Pipe Bomb Expose by Steve Baker.
	You're totally silent on the Butler revelations revealed by Tucker Carlson.
	You demonize the independent journalists, the Brianna Morelos, the Miranda Devines, and I forget who the third one was about those disclosures and then never speak of them again.
	So, like lengthy, convoluted answers or lengthy, highly detailed answers.
	Some behavioral analysts say it's a sign of deception because you're trying to confuse someone or make them to focus on this shiny object while not discussing the other shiny object.
	So, in addition to it potentially being a sign of diversion or distraction, it's also itself a source of skepticism when you are voluntarily very vocal and very verbose on certain issues and then utterly silent on others.
	Here, let me bring this one up.
	Bruce Dang says, Rebongino Miranda Devine Twitter comments.
	Mick Bride, this is a discussion that you're having internally that came by way of a text.
	McBride, are you out of your damn mind?
	You are the deputy director of the FBI, you are supposed to defend the Constitution, not run to social media.
	Let me bring this up so I can read this and everybody makes sure it's I read it entirely and show the entire post.
	Are you out of your mind?
	So, this is a discussion going on within our viva barneslaw.locals.com community.
	You are supposed to defend the Constitution, not run on social media crime because a reporter criticize you.
	You sit in one of the most powerful chairs of the federal system, you work for the American people.
	If you cannot grasp that simple truth, you have no business holding the power you do.
	And then we got Roostang saying Barnes Law.
	All right.
	Now, let me actually just play a video that Bongino posted yesterday, which I mean, I'm sensitive to, I can appreciate, and there's a great deal of truth to it.
	Here, a friend of Bongino, this is his tweet.
	A friend of mine sent me this.
	Hits hard today, given the endless efforts to derail us coming from the snakes in the garden.
	If we truly want to be honest and upfront about leadership, you can't ignore the cost of leadership.
	Great leaders are willing to accept those costs.
	Number one, you will have to make hard decisions that negatively affect people you care about.
	Number two, you will be disliked despite your best attempts to do the best for the most.
	And number three, you will be misunderstood and won't always have the opportunity to defend yourself.
	Was that it?
	Well, that 30 seconds went by real quick.
	It's a very, very poignant point.
	And had that been Dan's only response, and my advice would have been as personal manager to Mr. Bongino, I would have said that should have been your only response.
	And no actual other direct interactions or direct callouts to members of the press or critics, adversaries, whatever.
	That speaks volumes.
	It's the reality.
	Like, you say, be careful what you wish for when you become almighty and powerful, like the Joe Rogans of the world.
	Everybody on earth wants to get on Joe Rogan.
	Everybody wants to share their story on Joe Rogan.
	You become a Joe Rogan-level individual.
	You're almost, you know, at a godly level, not in terms of power and divine righteousness, but just in terms of everybody's praying to God, God, you know, cure this, help me with that.
	You get to the Joe Rogan levels of the world.
	Everybody's saying, Joe, please bring me on.
	I got, it's an important issue.
	I've got to share it with the world.
	And you're my outlet to do that.
	That.
	You get to be president.
	You're literally answering, or at least being called upon by everyone in your country, 350 million people.
	You are literally being criticized by people who disagree with some of your decisions.
	And you can't explain everything in real time.
	You can't please everybody, nor will you.
	It's logistically impossible.
	But, you know, to Roostang's point, that should have been the response and not directly calling out journalists or suggesting that people become snakes in the grass when they offer criticism, which, depending on how you perceive it, could either be destructive criticism or constructive criticism.
	And a ass-kissing media, like what we're seeing from Fox News, by and large, is not going to help anybody.
	I mean, it will help you in your silo, but it will hurt you in the long term.
	And Cash in the answers that he's providing and the questions that he's not answering is not making the situation better.
	They've had some great successes.
	Owen Schroyer put out a video a while back saying, at some point, the victory laps for doing your job come to an end.
	And then the question is: it's very nice.
	Hey, whether or not the FBI should be in federal law enforcement as opposed to intelligence.
	State law enforcement should be taking care of this and probably is.
	At some point, the FBI has got to deal with the biggest issues that were the existential threats to this constitutional republic that is these United States of America.
	And that was deep state treacherous behavior for which nobody has been punished.
	Nobody's been arrested.
	Comey getting his two bullshit charges that just got tossed.
	I say too little, too late, whether or not that's Kash Patel or pan bonding, I think it's more pan bonding than Kash Patel.
	Whether or not they're just in over their head, whether or not the rot is too deep and it has affected the trunk, the core, the roots of this tree, that might be the reality as well.
	And then the only question is, how do you address that?
	How do you shed light on that without sinking the ship that you're trying to save?
	And that's all I have to say about that.
	Now, I did see ginger ninjas in the house and King of Bill Tong.
	Come on now, David.
	We know you're overly harsh on Bongino.
	You never give him the absolute benefit of every possible doubt, sarcasm.
	But you do have to treat people who you are convinced are good faith actors differently and not immediately jump to malice.
	So that being, you know, if this, if it were Comey and Ray, I don't know who the other, the deputy directors were under the Biden FBI, you know, yeah, you might look at them calling someone out on Twitter with much different eye.
	And at the end of the day, also, people are human, people are fallible, people are sensitive, people are weak.
	People have moments of weakness.
	King of Biltong says, we also specialize in imported foods, King of Biltong for a great selection of imported candies, cookies, groceries, and of course, Bill Tong.
	Use code Viva for 10% off.
	I feel compelled to show the product because I think if people saw what Biltong is, this is not a formal sponsor of the show.
	I mean, I say informal because he's a member of our community and puts up the Humble France.
	This is Bill Tong.
	It's flipping delicious.
	Oh, look at those cookies.
	If I were into cookies, I'd be into those cookies.
	It's delicious.
	Get Bill Tong, people.
	It's healthy.
	South African beef jerky made in Texas from a man who moved from the peepy-soaked heckle that is South Africa to America for a better life and is also hell-bent on making sure that these United States of America survive the tumultuous times and the tumultuous tides through which they are currently sailing.
	Now, getting to the news, other news, the outlets, people that have access to the White House.
	Jim Acosta does not any longer get any benefit of the doubt.
	And it's been a while for Jim.
	I'm sure he's a nice guy.
	I'm sure he treats his dogs well.
	I'm sure he loves his family.
	He's trustworthy in his untrustworthiness.
	He's reliable in his propagandism.
	And he is predictable in his in-your-face, outrageous, stupid confession-through-projection hypocrisy.
	Why?
	Because Democrats, liberals, progressives, they're lacking a part of their brain that has introspection and insight.
	They're lacking a part of their brain that has humility.
	They are arrogant, and that causes them to not look into themselves and accuse others of that of which they are themselves guilty.
	Oh, and of course, he's quote tweeting Aaron Rupar.
	Aaron Rupar tweets this.
	Aaron Rupar, A.T. Rupar, look him up in the Urban Dictionary.
	A lying sack of shit.
	Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie intended to further his propagandist perspective.
	Moments after Matt Gace asks a question at the Pentagon press briefing, Laura Loomer gets her turn.
	Oh, is it just the end of the world?
	Laura Loomer's there.
	Oh, whatever are we going to do?
	Listen to the question that Laura Loomer asks, you damn jackass.
	We'll continue to evaluate all of those to make sure, again, that national security is protected.
	That is the secretary's utmost priority.
	But given the fact that the Qatari royal family and Qatar itself is the biggest financier, along with Turkey, of course, the financier of the Muslim Brotherhood, would that relationship and partnership be reevaluated since the designation could possibly include Qatar?
	I'm not tracking any reevaluation at this time, but again, the Secretary really keeps national security top of mind and this administration does as well.
	So we will always make sure that American assets are protected.
	Yes.
	Hi, David Zia.
	Real America's voice.
	Real America's voice.
	Oh my God.
	How did they get in there?
	Great to be.
	Hashtag, I'm kidding.
	This is like everyone on mainstream legacy propagandist media are flipping their lids right now because you got, by the way, let me hear his question.
	I want to know if you can.
	Okay.
	So you got Laura Loomer, Breanna Morello, I believe Sean Talf, I forget the last name, but from OAN in the backdrop.
	And then you got Real America's Voice.
	Now, let me bring this out here because it's important.
	This is what Jim Acosta said.
	I want to zoom in so you don't get the punchline right away.
	Jim Acosta said, this is a good example of what full state control of the media would look like in the United States.
	Real Orwellian stuff.
	Jim Acosta, you're always welcome on the channel to defend your stupidity.
	Did you even listen to the video before posting that?
	Do you know what the question was?
	Do you understand that that question that Laura Loomer asked was critical of the Trump administration?
	I mean, someone's got to tell me if I'm absolutely out in left field here and I'm taking crazy pills.
	Does Jim Acosta not take the 38 requisite seconds?
	It actually would have been like 14 if he skipped the question or the intro.
	It would have been 30 seconds right when you get to thank you for your answer.
	Does he not understand that what Laura Loomer was suggesting is that designating certain terrorist entities, terrorist entities, might adversely impact Qatar, which is an ally of the Americas, Trump government, and which is a key player with the Trump government.
	That's criticism of Trump.
	Oh my God.
	That's what it would look like if the media.
	What is this?
	That's what full state control of the media would look like in the United States.
	Or Willie said, you are such a moron.
	You didn't even understand or listen to the fact that that question was critical of the Trump administration because Laura Loomer, for all her foibles, has a bit of an issue with the relationship that Qatar has with America, given Qatar's funding of terrorist groups.
	They're idiots.
	They're just idiots.
	And right now you have what seem to be, they might be definitely pro-Trump journalists asking questions that hold the Trump administration to account, or at least forced it to justify or articulate its positions to everyone else out there.
	I mean, it was amazing.
	We had another one here.
	Here's a, well, okay, let's go to what was the other one that I wanted to bring up here.
	Here.
	Oh, yeah, this is the one.
	This is something of an incongruous segue, people.
	All right.
	Melissa, oh, this is Alyssa Slotkin posts this.
	Separate issue.
	I want to talk about something that Benny Johnson posted earlier today as well.
	Senator Alyssa Slotkin said, make this make sense.
	The president launches lethal strikes on transporters of cocaine, but then pardons Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted cocaine kingpin.
	In mafia terms, it's like going after the bagman while inviting the mob boss to dinner.
	P.S. ban the presidential pardon.
	Don't worry, I think Trump's on his way to doing that.
	So that's a quasi-legitimate question.
	And I want to play something that, oh, geez, Benny Johnson played earlier, which was here.
	I'm going to read what Benny Johnson says.
	I don't think I disagree with Benny on this substantively, but there is a little more nuance than there's a little more nuance in the legal sense to what's going on with respect to the blowing up of alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea.
	Benny Johnson writes, you simply cannot make this, can't make this up.
	Democrat rep Adam Smith says the strikes on narco-terrorists are not an act of self-defense because, quote, people on boat carrying cocaine are not a direct threat, end quote.
	These drugs have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
	They are the definition of a direct threat.
	Now, let's play this.
	Was this self-defense?
	And how do the rules of international waters play into whether this was a war crime?
	Yeah, in my opinion, no.
	This is not self-defense.
	And no matter where you do the strike, if it's not self-defense, then it's illegal.
	And look, I have a lot of sympathy for the general idea that when we send our service members out into combat, they got some very difficult decisions to make.
	When you look at what was going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and you're stopping someone, do they have a gun?
	Do they have a suicide vest?
	Are they a threat?
	When you're in the middle of an insurgency with roadside bombs and car bombs and all of that, even in the aftermath of the Afghanistan pullout, when we had that suicide bomber kill 13 service members and hundreds of people in Kabul, and we did that strike against a car that we thought was a threat that turned out not to be a threat, I have some sympathy for that.
	But people on a boat in the middle of the Caribbean carrying cocaine are not a direct threat to the lives of our service members or Americans.
	Now, people are going to say drugs kill hundreds of thousands of people.
	It's as much of a direct threat as, I don't know.
	The question is, is dealing cocaine as much of a direct threat as pointing a gun at somebody?
	And so one question here, the nuance to Benny, is, would you be allowed to summarily execute a drug dealer on the streets of America?
	And the answer is not necessarily a clear-cut yes.
	It's probably a clear-cut no.
	And then the argument would be, well, then you can't do it abroad either without it being a similarly international crime.
	Arguably, you're going to have different rules for international waters, and I'm not the legal expert to venture into that.
	But it's not as cut and dry as saying, well, you know, drugs kill people, therefore it's an existential threat that can warrant without exposure, without legal exposure, summary executions in international waters.
	With that said, and you get back to Slotkin's legitimate point, and it's a little Barnes and I talked about it.
	You know, how do you reconcile blowing up drug dealers in boats while pardoning the drug kingpin?
	I don't know how much is true to this, but this is an interesting theory that they're pardoning him because he's going to testify or facilitate prosecutions or help with the war on drugs.
	I don't know if it's true.
	It's an interesting excuse.
	It's an interesting justification that I had not necessarily thought of.
	That being said, again, the question is there.
	The exposure is there.
	And if you want to see this administration succeed and you don't want to see Pete Hegsef get impeached and convicted, rah-rah, cis boom, yeah, whatever the heck the cheer is, might not be the right thing to do when an administration might be committing crimes.
	From my own personal perspective, I won't cry over drug dealers getting blown up in the middle of the ocean.
	I don't know that I would order it if I were in charge.
	That might be why I'm not and never will be in charge.
	Won't cry over it.
	Wouldn't do it, but won't vigorously protest against killing drug dealers.
	When it's going to become an issue is when a boat of innocent fishermen, definitively innocent people, get blown up, much like blowing up terrorists overseas was never really an issue until who was it that revealed the collateral murder, the blowing up of journalists.
	Then it becomes a crime, and then it becomes something that, God forbid, if it happens, then you're going to be dealing with serious, serious consequences for an administration and potentially administration ending consequences for the administration.
	Dred Robert over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com says, if the U.S. holds that view that executing people is okay by fiat, they should be okay with other countries doing it.
	That would lead to all citizens dying violently.
	Well, I mean, everyone's going to make the argument as to what crime they're allegedly breaking.
	Vincent Gerkes is a retired OPP investigator in Ontario, another hero.
	Now, let me bring up something here over in vivabarneslaw.locals.com to bring up the chat there.
	And we see what's going on.
	So it wouldn't be a problem if they blew them up.
	So it wouldn't be a problem if they blew them up in U.S. waters.
	I think it would be.
	And these are quite, you know, saying that I presume they've sought legal advice.
	The only question is what type of legal advice are they getting?
	Are they getting motivated reasoning legal advice, which is looking for the answer that yes, this is, we're going to make this legal.
	We're going to deem it legal, although they're not the judge or the jury.
	And are they factoring in the political support?
	It's garnering political support, I do believe.
	And it's very interesting from a political perspective, getting Democrats to yet again ostensibly defend cocaine-dealing criminals is not the best look for Democrats heading into an election.
	Blowing up narco-traffickers, narco-terrorists, is not going to get much sympathy from anybody right up until the time that they blow up an innocent fishing boat, an aspirin factory, a journalist who's on the boats documenting what's going on.
	How does anyone know the drugs were going to successfully enter the U.S., says Austin LA?
	And then that's the other question is, well, if they are destined for Europe, if they're destined for Canada, but then they're going to come in anyhow.
	So anyways, all that to say, it's not, cheerleading is not necessarily the best way to make your team win.
	In fact, cheerleaders are different than coaches and they're different than analysts.
	But that's that.
	All right.
	Now, what else are we talking about today?
	Oh, yeah, there was something.
	Speaking of Canadians, so hold on.
	I'm going to look at this up, the OPP officer.
	Let me get a little bit of Canadian stuff in here for just a second.
	First of all, let me see what's going on in the backdrop.
	I've got, we're going to cover another, we're going to cover the Somali issue in just one second.
	I just want to play this because this is kind of actually funny.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing.
	It is funny.
	You remember that video that went vile a while back when Justin Trudeau was at one of those dinners and he says, Of course, the media is friendly with me.
	I paid them $600 million.
	And then everyone pretends, like, oh, the punchline was that he was actually showing how the media was critical of him.
	When the actual punchline to the punchline was that even the bad press that he was suggesting was of a free press was the most pussy-footed pat on the ass.
	Oh, you're a you're a you're a big boy uh level ass kissing from the so-called media that was not bought and paid for by the liberal government.
	They tell the truth when they joke.
	And this is the interim leader of the NDP, the New Democrat Party, after Jugmeet Singh is no longer there, doing something of a roast at one of their gallows.
	First of all, it pisses me off to no end to watch this shit because these politicians live like gods.
	They view themselves as gods.
	They view themselves as heroes in their own minds.
	They erect statues to their own glorification.
	They have their fancy dinners.
	They sit around.
	I hate it.
	I would never want to be part of a club that would like this, that would have me as a member.
	Listen to this, though, because some of it's actually quite funny.
	Don Davies, and my pronouns are broke and irrelevant.
	That's very loud.
	Hold on, before I'm blaringly loud for everybody else, let me see if that's tell me if that's too loud, locals, and I'm going to.
	I don't know how you lower the volume on Instagram.
	How do you, how do you, okay, there's volume on and volume off.
	Is there no way to volume down?
	Let me just see if that was.
	If that's not too loud, I'll play it.
	For me, it's empty.
	Okay, good.
	It's ostensibly.
	It's empty much louder than my.
	Okay, here.
	And to explain that joke, broke and irrelevant, A, it's really fun that they, you know, making fun of the 2S LGBTQIA plus nonsense.
	It shows you what they really think about it.
	But broken irrelevant is the standing of the NDP party right now, who actually lost official party status after getting their asses handed to them during the last federal election.
	Oh, look at this.
	This is like, this is that, like, let them eat cake.
	This is how they live when like one in four Canadian children is suffering food insecurity.
	When people are dying in the ERs, these people have the people live at the lap of luxury.
	This is media and government.
	I was originally given three minutes for my remarks, but I negotiated an extra minute in exchange for propping up the liberals.
	Hardy Harris.
	And an extra two for keeping the conservatives out of an election.
	They laugh at your misery, is basically what it is.
	Jesus, Monsieur Blanche, after that speech, I think I'm going to vote for separation.
	There might be a little bit too much Canadian-centric humor here.
	Blanche is the leader of the block, and they want to Quebec wants to separate from Canada.
	And I guess Blanche just gave a speech.
	He's like, that was so boring.
	I'm going to vote for separation.
	Hardy har.
	Look, I'll be honest.
	The last election was tough for New Democrats, despite having a hip, fit, and well-dressed leader.
	So, in choosing an interim leader, we're going to go in a different direction.
	That's funny because that's self-deprecating.
	We can stop there.
	I'm not sure if anybody cares that much about Canadian politics, or it's too eclectic, not too eclectic, too.
	Um, what is the word for something that is specific?
	Oh, what's the uh esoteric?
	It might be too politically esoteric for the majority of the people watching right now.
	Um, all right, we're gonna get into the Somali question in a second.
	Let me just bring up a tipped question from our locals' community.
	See the veil.
	May I ask?
	During Afghanistan, our three-letter agencies, military, and NGOs created drug-growing fields and processing centers and sent drugs to the USA for Purdue Pharma Oxycontin overdose.
	Yet, this supply chain still exists of illegal drugs being sold by big pharma.
	That also has a death toll larger than what is coming over to the USA illegally, yet they still live and they never went to jail.
	Why?
	Why can't they kill big pharma personnel who create bad drugs?
	It's a fair question.
	My understanding, well, for you know, not to get into the details, they took over the poppy fields, or at least they protected the Taliban-controlled poppy fields that were producing heroin in Afghanistan.
	I think there might have been a legal part to that and not necessarily a part of the legal drug trade.
	But it's a good, you know, hey, where does the summary executions end in terms of who gets to be deemed eligible for summary execution?
	At first, I said nothing at first, they came for the cocaine dealers, and I said nothing because I wasn't a cocaine dealer.
	I don't, you assume they're never going to come for you, but um, wait until uh Kamala Harris 2.0 AOC comes in and says white nationalists are the existential threat and pose a direct threat to democracy.
	So we get to drone strike them and blow them up.
	All right, that's a little hyperbolic, but you know what I'm getting at.
	All right, back to Minnesota and the Somalian issue that is going on in Tim Walz's Minnesota.
	If you don't know who Robert Govea is, I haven't played a clip from him in a while, you should know who Robert Govea is.
	Let me play you this, and we're going to talk about the latest in the Somalian fraud issues and the political problems affecting Minnesota that have led to something today.
	Here, listen to this: two stories here: one from Fox saying 400 current staff members say that the governor systematically retaliated against the whistleblowers.
	So, if you watch this fraud happening and you said anything about it, Tim Walz, who almost was the vice president of this country, not almost, but you know, he was facilitating it, saying that 400 people accused him of failing to act on any of this.
	They say Tim Walz 100% responsible for the massive fraud in Minnesota.
	We let him know about this, but he systematically retaliated against all of us.
	He monitored us, he repressed us, he discredited all of our fraud reports and more.
	Now, the Justice Department announced new charges last week against the 78th defendant.
	They stole more than $250 million.
	We know the rest of this.
	The reason why they didn't go after, or allegedly, the reason why this problem got so out of hand is nobody wanted to be politically incorrect and target the Somali community, which was disproportionately overrepresented in this billion-dollar fraud.
	This is what's going on in Minnesota now.
	This is from Colin Rugg, who says: Somali immigrant in Minneapolis council member Jamal Osman says Trump is a racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic before speaking in Somali, so Minnesota residents could understand.
	My name is Jamal Osman.
	I am the council member of War 6, someone who represents the large East African community in Minneapolis.
	I am proud to say I'm a Somali American.
	This country welcomed me, my family 26 years ago.
	It has provided me a life that I did not have in Somalia.
	We came here and we are thankful to be here.
	I've been educated here, had the opportunity to serve my community, to be a council member.
	I know many families are fearful tonight.
	They are.
	But I want you to know that the city of Minneapolis stands behind you as the leaders, both mayors and the chief and everyone that's standing behind you, are here to stand with you.
	Our community has lived through fear in the past.
	Do you remember that clip of Gad Saad coming out and saying after this latest Afghan terrorist attack against the DC guardsmen that the backlash, they're going to fear the backlash.
	So America has to bring in more.
	And people actually thought Gad Saad was being serious or claimed to believe that Gad Saad was being serious.
	We're literally watching the same iteration of this in real time.
	In the face of overwhelming serious issues resulting from criminality of a specific community, the immediate concern is now they fear backlash and now they fear racism despite the realities of the incident.
	I'm going to let us divide that.
	We're going to stay informed.
	We're going to stay safe and we're going to support each other.
	We will continue to work our partners on the ground so residents know their rights.
	Partners on the ground.
	They know where to turn for help.
	And we know that Minneapolis will not abandon.
	One of the things I do want to say, and obviously everyone knows that our president is racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic.
	And we are going to fight that.
	We're going to fight that.
	America has a history of fighting and stopping those kind of individuals.
	Just appreciate what he just said there, because maybe I'm neurotic, maybe I'm a little exaggerating.
	What is the history of dealing with racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic people?
	I mean, if I were crazy, I would might think, you know, considering that's exactly what they said of Charlie Kirk, I might perceive that to be something of another dog whistle call to action.
	He's a racist, Islamophobic.
	What was the other one?
	Xenophobic.
	I'm just saying, you know, the funny thing is, let me Google what happens if you criticize the president of Somalia.
	Who continue to divide people and divide communities?
	Many Somalis that live in this community are working, are working at your groceries, working at your hospitals, delivering your babies.
	They're doctors.
	They are very successful individuals.
	Now I would like to switch into Somali to speak to my community.
	Sorry, why?
	What's this?
	Is it racist, xenophobic, bigoted to say you speak the official languages of the country?
	Is it racist, bigoted, or xenophobic to say if you have enclaves of foreign individuals who don't speak the language of the land, that that is not immigration with assimilation?
	That is something else?
	As-salamu alaykum.
	Halal.
	I don't speak Spanish.
	That's a joke from Anchorman.
	Hold on a second.
	I want to bring this up.
	What happens if you criticize the president of Somalia?
	Hmm.
	Does anybody know the answer to this?
	I know the answer to this because I looked it up previously on Dexter.
	Criticizing the president or other national leaders in Somalia can lead to arrest and imprisonment.
	Freedom of speech and the press are not consistently respected by federal or regional authorities.
	And individuals who voice dissent, particularly journalists, face significant risks.
	Nothing better than coming to a country, availing yourselves of more freedoms in that country to undermine the presidential authority of that country.
	Let's bring up another one here.
	Another.
	Here's another one on Trump being racist.
	Ilan Omar says Somalis are going to stay in the United States regardless of what President Trump says.
	Legal or illegal, Somalis.
	And let's just play some of this genius rhetoric here.
	Play.
	He's always been a racist, a bigot, a xenophobic, and Islamophobic.
	We know that he called African nations a shithole in his first administration.
	We know that.
	I think we actually know that you married your brother with greater evidence than that bullshit statement.
	We know that when he.
	But do you disagree with it?
	I mean, you fled Somalia because it doesn't offer you the freedoms that America offers you.
	So what would you qualify that country as?
	We know that when he came down that escalator, he said he was going to stop Muslim immigration into this country.
	And so it is not surprising that he is going after black immigrants in this country.
	And it's certainly not surprising that he is choosing a black immigrant community that is also Muslim.
	But what I would like to say is that most of us are citizens on our passport.
	It says we are nationals of this country.
	We love that Minnesota has welcomed us.
	Many of us have not been settled in Minnesota.
	We chose it as a home because the Minnesota people and the state is beautiful and very welcoming.
	And we are going to be here regardless of what the president has to say.
	It turns my stomach to listen to her talk.
	There is an enclave within Minnesota that has become the hub, and it is now the source of billion dollars of fraud against the state of Minnesota from people who are members of a community who are predominantly overrepresented in that fraud while simultaneously purporting to love the state in which their community has statistically overrepresented and participated in defrauding that state.
	Well, you know what they say?
	I was just watching around us the other day.
	If you've been sitting at a poker table for 20 minutes and you don't know who the pidgin is, you're the pigeon.
	And it's very easy to prey on the good nature of the United States of America and then scream racism when people point out objective issues and objective non-assimilation into the country that has afforded you and awarded you more freedoms than you had in the land from which you came.
	And with that said, people, I'm going to save the rest of this for the Viva Barnes law.locals.com after party.
	Let me make sure that I've gotten everything.
	Who are we going to raid right now?
	I say we go raid.
	We're going to go raid redacted.
	They look like they're talking about, okay, copy that.
	Hold on one second.
	They're talking about deep state coup coming for Trump.
	New JFK files released.
	There was some new Epstein stuff, which we'll talk about over on vivabarneslaw.locals.com before we leave.
	Everyone, get your butts on over there if you want to come.
	If you want to support the channel, you know how to do it.
	There's that crypto tip button down there.
	Download the Android app if you've got Android.
	You can get a Louis the Lobster book on Amazon.
	You can come get your discount.
	40%.
	I'm pointing.
	You get your discount.
	Viva and Barnes want you to join the community.
	40% discount for the rest of the month.
	I think it's all caps Christmas at viva barnslaw.locals.com.
	Get some bill tong.
	And you all know what to do.
	Just snip clips, share the channel with people you think would like it and share it with people who you know would not because they need to hear it the most.
	So with that said, we are going to meander on over to locals.
	Did I share the link?
	Locals?
	There you go.
	Oh, yeah, I did.
	I'm just not in the chat.
	And right now, we're going to go raid redacted and let them know from whence you came and give them a good old how goes the battle.
	Viva says, kiss a magnet.
	It's better.
	It's better.
	Forward slash raid.
	I'll get to the chat for a few minutes while we do this.
	Forward slash raid, confirm raid.
	Going over there.
	Let's read the chat for a few minutes while people decide to come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Louis the lobster, neurodivergent.
	Thank you very much.
	Take care all.
	Be safe out there.
	Redacted or lame conspiracy.
	That's Bucklebrush Jones.
	You can't be 50%.
	Okay, I'm not doing that.
	Omar figured out helping her brother.
	Geez, Louise, I can't take a lot of these.
	This happens when you still suffer from Canadian brain freeze.
	That's about me, but I don't know what that's about.
	Refuse to learn the language.
	You're out.
	I mean, I agree.
	And I agree from a French-Canadian perspective.
	I'm not French-Canadian people, but you want to live in Quebec.
	You're damn well going to speak the language.
	You want to live in Quebec and say, no, no, it's a French province.
	I want English.
	Go to an English province.
	French is the predominant language in Quebec, protected by law in order to protect the culture and the history of France, of France, of French Quebec.
	Whether or not you think that's a good policy, tough noogies.
	You move to Quebec and you want to insist on speaking English.
	There's a number of other provinces and a number of other countries.
	But when you enter a land that welcomes you and then you demand that that land change for your political, religious, ideological preferences, you're not really moving now, are you?
	You're just importing.
	Now, with this said, I'm going to bring these up while everyone come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ginger ninja in the house.
	Why does Omar sound like a young female Christopher Watkin with a slight, you're gonna, we're gonna, everyone knows that President Trump is a racist.
	I do understand exactly what you're talking about.
	It's a feminine Christopher Watkin in his younger years.
	And Spinnaker says, Minnesota tax dollars are being sent to Al-Shabaab.
	So if Minnesotans continue to pay their taxes, are they guilty of funding terrorist extremism?
	Good question.
	All right, let's do it.
	We're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What day is it today?
	It's Wednesday.
	So Thursday tomorrow, we're going to have our good show.
	I got some family stuff to attend to shortly.
	Nothing bad.
	I got to go pick up a nephew at the airport sooner than later.
	So we're going to have our party on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Stay tuned for more stuff and all that other good stuff.
	Rumble, peace out.
	See you tomorrow.

▲