Viva Barnes critiques the DOJ's antitrust suits against Big Ag and the Virginia Supreme Court's 4-3 rejection of a redistricting referendum, praising its resistance to political pressure. He analyzes the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz, alleging insider trading by Trump allies like Jared Kushner regarding oil futures, and discusses E. Jean Carroll's $83.3 million verdict against Donald Trump. The episode further examines Texas bans on cultured meat, implied consent DUI laws, and alleged Chinese surveillance operations in Canada, concluding that these legal battles reveal deep systemic corruption and the erosion of constitutional rights. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Gator Handler in Shark Valley00:02:14
Free or at least word free video.
I'm going to narrate what's going on for people who are listening on podcasts.
Listen to it on Podbeam, Viva, and Barnes, recovering attorney, something along those lines.
It's a gator that is hog tied and hands tied.
Okay, I'll just.
The caption said, Yeah, gator handler.
You ever been down to Shark Valley after taunting?
That's a great ride.
And there it's a pathway through, you know, part of the Everglades there.
And they got, there's gators everywhere and they'll be on the road.
And I literally have to get off the bike and And walk around.
Well, I'm doing a ride in November down there.
Yeah.
I did it two years ago.
Okay, now they're replaying him tapping his nose, calling it taunting.
And I'm not convinced it's taunting.
But as someone made the funny joke, clearly the gator is taking notes.
This is the moment of impact.
He's coming back.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
So, the question here is Was the gator handler taunting the gator, or as I choose to believe, was he feeling out to see what the gator's response was going to be, whether or not it was ready to be handled, manhandled, whether or not it was going to react the way it did?
I don't think this is taunting.
I think right now he's trying to see if it's going to react aggressively and thrust its body.
For anybody who has never seen an alligator move in real time, they're amazing creatures.
Let's just take this one out of here.
They're amazing creatures.
And I remember once I ran into the RCMP up in Canada and I was kissing, I tried to kiss the horse on the nose because they're cute animals.
And I went above it.
And then the officer immediately said, Don't do that because if the horse lifts its head for whatever the reason, it'll break your nose and knock you out without the slightest bit of effort.
That was a big gator.
And that thing, it looked like it knocked him out cold by thrusting up and smashing his face.
Amazing Creatures of Yamato Gardens00:02:18
With that said, everybody.
It is Sunday, and it is time for Viva and Barnes Law for the People, the Sunday night law extravaganza.
We are live across all of the platforms of the interwebs.
That means X, ConnyTube, also known as YouTube, Rumble, and the best place to watch where I've been in the chat for the half hour leading up to the show, Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
For those of you who don't know me, Viva Fry, David Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
And it's Mother's Day, people.
And my wife, Is taking the kids to, I think they're going to go see a movie while we do the show because Viva and Barnes Law for the People rests not for anything, maybe except for the Super Bowl, just because people like sports and extremely important family events.
Today we went to Morikami Gardens, which is an amazing place on, say, off Yamato on Jog Road in Florida.
And if you've never been there and if you come to Florida, you absolutely Have to go to Murakami Gardens.
I'll see if I can pull up the picture of our family photo.
I can't because there's too much chat over in viva barnslaw.locals.com.
We went there to try to replicate a photograph that we took two years ago when we first discovered.
Oh, here it is right here.
Okay, look at this.
Check this out.
And it's a sort of a Japanese garden, Japanese museum.
It's absolutely stunning, absolutely glorious.
And you realize that the street Yamato in Florida.
Was named after the family Yamato, who were, I want to say Japanese.
They weren't really settlers.
Were farmers back in the early 1900s and they were trying to figure out a way to grow agriculture in Florida in an innovative way.
Yamato is named after the family, Jog Street is also a Japanese last name, and the gardens it's a beautiful walk through the woods.
There's you know a gator in the pond, it's absolutely stunning.
It's a place where you could shoot movies, you could have timepieces, you can go to meditate.
We went there and had a wonderful, wonderful Mother's Day.
Walk through the woods.
It's already so flipping hot in Florida that people are literally melting.
UFO Files Release Skepticism00:06:21
All right, people, let me just make sure that we're good and live.
And I'm going to make sure that we're good and live in our locals community just by asking all good here.
And we've got, I mean, it's good.
Every, every, look, I'm biased.
Every show is pretty damn good.
This one is going to be amazing because the news does not take a moment of break.
And there's been some interesting legal developments this week.
And it's going to make for one heck of a great show.
Until Barnes gets here, I want to just, oh, standard disclaimers, people.
As always, if you're going to be upset if you give a tipped question, well, Locals community, we get to all the tipped questions.
TommyTube, every now and again, I miss them.
And Rumble, sometimes I miss them.
And if you're going to feel angry, dismayed that I didn't get to your tipped question, don't.
And if you're going to, then think twice about it because sometimes I miss them despite my best efforts.
But over in our Locals community, Which is the best above average community out there?
We've got Chris Kraft, $20 for the Bill Brown was right again jar.
And that looks like a dog smoking a doobie.
Gray 101 says President Trump will fully disclose the UFO files before he would ever implicate.
Okay, well, this is not my.
Let me just make sure we see it so that people know it's not my words.
Before he would ever implicate his friends and himself with the Epstein files.
Well, you know, they've released a lot of the Epstein files.
They have not yet released a substantial portion of it, or at least a material portion of it.
Nothing that has been disclosed has implicated or incriminated Donald John Trump himself, but it certainly might have embarrassed members of his orbit, as I think it did.
Bigfoot says Barnes tie never disappoints.
I'm obsessed.
Well, we're going to see what that one is.
I do want to, you know, while we're on the topic of the disclosures, and though it wasn't the video that I wanted to start the show with, the disclosures came out on Friday.
And I don't know why I said oot like a total Canadian.
The disclosures came out on Friday.
To say they were lackluster, Is an understatement of the year.
Some of the stuff I'm sure is interesting, but I don't remember who it was exactly, but they basically summarized it in my sentiment exactly.
There was very little that we saw that could not have been otherwise explained, or at least have some conventional explanation or a thousand other explanations other than it being UFOs.
The one that really irritated me, we're into the 10th, 9th, the 8th, the one that really irritated me was I came from an individual named John Stewart, who I thought was John Stewart, the Comedian, the so called comedian, but it wasn't.
So, Jon Stewart, Illinois, who is this investigator, journalist, former pro wrestler, author, and Illinois governor candidate, and Joanne's proud dad and husband, puts out this post.
It says, Thank you, Donald Trump, for releasing the UFO files.
You will be hailed as a hero.
And it includes this video, which I believe is audio free, and we'll play it here.
And, like, I swear to you, in the world where you can't distinguish between parody and reality, satire and sincerity, This could have been a mocking post.
And at first, I wasn't sure if it wasn't a mocking post because this is a video of what looks like something of an alien.
But it's, I mean, as far as I'm concerned, it's as fake as anything gets.
And from my understanding, it is in fact a fake or debunked purported video of an alien.
But you read the caption, and I couldn't tell if this was making fun of the release or actually sincerely praising Trump for the release.
And I was a little frustrated.
I just said, What are you doing?
Is this supposed to be a joke ridiculing the decision to release the UFO files, or is it intended to be a cutesy attempt to trick people into thinking this is from the UFO files?
It's an old debunked video.
It's not from the files that were just released.
It's a pretty irresponsible post.
This is like it had been out there forever.
Then you had the other video that went quasi viral, which was the one again, not to say I'm not in any group chat where there's any coordinated messaging in terms of what I post to X.
But there was the one of it looked like something of an iron cross floating in the sky, and then there was some smoke coming off of it.
People were saying this looks like angels from the Bible, and we're reverting back to a spiritual Christian nation, which I dare say it would be for the betterment of society as a whole.
And then you read posts on the internet, and I don't know if they're accurate, debunking that particular video saying this is either a parachute or a flare, and what looks like a cross angel from the Bible is actually just some sort of refractor or refraction glare through the camera.
They released the UFO files.
People hailed it as the most smashing release ever.
And in reality, there was nothing in there of any relevance, of any import that I could see.
And anybody who says it was a distraction from everything else that's going on in the world right now has an extra quiver in the sack, whatever you want to call it, of that sentiment.
It was very, very much underwhelming, to put it mildly.
And it served as something of a distraction, but something is also an argument for what many people would say is a distraction.
So until we see something that proves, or at least something that will allow people to reasonably claim holy crabapples, this is evidence of.
Extraterrestrial life, intelligent life, because as far as I'm concerned, nobody should be shocked that there's life on other planets.
We are now officially the aliens of this universe.
That 50% of water on Earth came from meteorites, and water is the source of life.
It would be silly to think that there isn't some form of undeveloped or underdeveloped non intelligent life form out there in the frozen waters on Mars, in the frozen waters on meteorites.
If only tardy grades, that would technically qualify, but intelligent life is what we're looking for.
And.
It was a little bit, a little bit disappointing.
And I would say a little bit counterproductive.
Now, there's a chat over in our crumble, in our locals room, which is in the.
Here, I want to see this because the one, this one, that was what people were claiming looked like, you know, something out of the.
Virginia Redistricting and Water Origins00:15:26
What is going on here?
The lifeguard's reaction when she sees me drowning for the eighth time that day.
Okay, I get jokes now.
Although I didn't bring it up so you don't know what joke I'm looking at.
So that's it.
Let me see where Barnes is at and we're going to get this show going because I don't want to start on.
Stuff until Barnes is here.
I put out a video.
Let me guess we could touch on one Canadian thing.
Nope, Barnes is in the house.
I touched on it.
I'm going to share the link because I'm convinced that there's chicanery afoot.
You got to watch the video of the preemptive inoculation.
I went over this report in Canadian news on Friday with my brother, blaming Russian interference and American interference in the Alberta separatist movement.
Preemptive inoculation.
If you've never heard the word, go check it out.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
I think you might have to turn your camera a little bit.
I don't want to risk anything because I can see a little bit of your computer on the bottom.
Oh, yeah, no problem.
Okay.
And then, here's the link, people.
Go share this one around and put it on blast because what's truly astonishing is you have government media up in Canada, state funded government media relying on state funded government expert reports blaming Russia and America for interference in the Alberta separatist movement.
And if you don't know what the Alberta separatist movement is, I put out a nice video yesterday, recorded it while my wife was watching The Devil Wears Prada 1.
It gives you a bit of the history and the understanding of the separation movement, equalization payments, and everything else.
Robert, sir, someone was saying they're waiting for your tie, and your tie looks magnificent because it matches the handkerchief in your chest pocket.
How goes the battle?
Good, good.
Yeah, I even got some, it was a gift, Lady Justice cufflinks.
That's cool.
So, yeah, good, good as it goes.
We have, take a look at the Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com board.
We got some mock ups for the 1776 Law Center Conference.
They have you as like a French pirate turned American patriot.
Let me bring it up.
I made the joke that my drawing was to size.
Robert, if you can, turn up.
I don't want to risk anything.
Turn up your gain a little bit.
I know you were tinkering with it so that it would be.
And then we're going to hear.
I'll bring it.
That'll be better.
It'll be good enough.
Here, hold on one second.
Let me bring this up here.
I saw this earlier today.
So, 1776 Law Center.
Robert, who designed this?
Because it's actually kind of amazing.
My little sister and a friend of hers.
This is so good.
They got everybody in, like, they got even, you know, Alexander McCorris and Alex Christopher of the Duran are coming.
You know, they're Greek patriots dressed up as American patriots.
State Representative Michelle Renault, huge MAHA advocate in Tennessee.
The one and only Richard Barris, Brad Geyer, who's done January 6th cases, antitrust cases.
And then, I mean, I thought yours came out almost the best.
You look like a French patriot, pirate turned American revolutionary.
I love it.
James Hughes and Scott Rouse and Greg Hartley and a bunch of other folks.
Colonel Daniel Davis.
Larry Johnson looks good.
His ancestors were part of the American Revolution.
Ex CIA analyst of the son of the new American Revolution, Sonar 21 site.
So, yeah, they got everybody dressed up as a cool American patriot revolutionary wear for 1776 Law Center Conference, August 1st and 2nd, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Limited tickets.
There's still some left, but they're going fast.
So just go to 1776lawcenter.com.
All of those guests are coming, and we'll have some more surprise guests coming in as well.
I just say Larry Johnson's is beautiful.
But I thought for a second it was Alec Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin on the set of Rust.
Bada bing, bada boom.
All right.
Robert, what do we have on the show tonight?
Because there were a couple of things that came in last minute, which we're going to have to get to, but tell the audience what we're looking forward to.
So, yeah, no favorite was the top vote getter at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, but there were two recommended additional topics from the board, a couple of topics that came in late Friday night or Friday during the day.
So, we got DOJ taking on Big Ag and Bill Gates suing the state of Texas to Claim his rights to sell fake meat in the meat section.
We've got what is the law of the Strait?
I had a debate with Adam Taggart of Thoughtful Money, very smart economics advisor, provides independent information.
You can find him at Thoughtful Money on YouTube and other social media channels.
But what is the law of the Strait of Hormuz?
What governs?
What are the arguments for either side?
The DOJ sues Camerado over the Second Amendment, and they talk about going after Big Ag for antitrust violations.
We've got Virginia redistricting.
Big win.
There were some people like, oh, you predicted there was no chance.
I guess they didn't watch our show.
You got to watch the Sunday show to know.
Said there was a 50 50 chance.
Some people were out on some prediction markets, poly market.
The odds they said were only 5%.
So some people made 10x the rate of their money just by listening to the Sunday show.
So we got Trump's tariffs, unfortunately, expected result from the Court of International Trade on his new Section 122 tariffs.
We've got the insider trading indictment involving a bunch of lawyers.
Then we got the insider trading investigation that might implicate an Axios journalist who is very sensitive about being.
Suspected of something questionable.
Then we've got the pay for play schemes that are under investigation from the Trump administration.
Then, is surrogacy, according to the Florida Attorney General?
Hey, Dave Rubin, you might want to check what your buddy Governor DeSantis is and Attorney General is arguing.
He's arguing that you are involved in human trafficking, Dave.
That's what he's claiming.
He's claiming surrogacy violates the 13th Amendment and involves involuntary servitude.
What is the law?
This goes back to a case from the 1980s, the Baby M case that a few people may remember, but probably most have long forgotten.
The EU says, Italy, if you get some refugees, in quotes, stuck in your country, you have to give them domestic welfare.
Welcome to life, according to the European Union.
DEI in Minnesota, turns out their openly racially discriminatory policies in the Minnesota school contract is probably going to be invalidated thanks to a good suit brought by the Civil Rights Division, Harmony Dillon, the Department of Justice, who also brought the good Second Amendment suit against Camirato.
China spies, remember that controversy about those Chinese police stations?
Were they police stations?
Were they spies?
What were they?
Well, a couple of them are going to trial this week in New York.
We'll examine what's going to proceed in that case.
A Democrat's longtime state legislator raided in Virginia.
What is that all about?
Has some sort of cannabis connection.
An LA cop gets off for shooting a little girl in a department store.
Welcome to qualified immunity.
Marilyn Monroe's house has now been designated so historic, they're going to completely strip all the value of it.
And a judge I'm very well familiar with is going to let the city of LA get away with it.
The couple of questions from the board were about that auto shutoff that Congressman Thomas Massey has long been fighting and is going to go into force in 2027.
They can turn your car off without you even knowing while you're driving.
It's Vault 7 stuff in real time.
Robert, brother, the chat's saying you're still a little bit low if you can tweak it just a touch.
And as you do that, because I'm going to bring up something that we're going to watch as we head into the first topic of the day, which is.
Robert.
Crazy people abound.
I don't know if you saw this.
This is in Virginia.
This was after the Virginia Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, declared that the referendum that they had on the redistricting was, in fact, violative of the state constitution.
I'll just play it.
It's glorious.
I mean, this is what they call main character syndrome, I think.
Shame!
Shame on every single Supreme Court justice!
Who voted to take away our rights as a people to express our hate?
For a second, by the way, I thought the bus was going to hit her.
I thought it was going to be one of those punchlines.
She goes on for a few minutes.
I don't think we really need to listen to this.
Not me.
I mean, it's so performative and utterly insane.
But, Robert, so Virginia recently held a referendum.
Ivan Rakelin was on the day the vote was going down, saying, Get out and participate, people, because if they succeed in this, they're going to steal five, what was it, five congressional seats?
I get mixed up with this.
Yeah.
And so they were going to redistrict, and they were going to go from five, four, whatever the seats were, to 10 one for the Democrats.
And Ivan said, Get out there and vote, although it looks like it's a fait accompli, and we'll see what happens legally afterwards.
They vote on it.
It succeeds by, I don't know, 100 and some odd thousand.
It was close.
I don't know if it was exactly like 5149 type close.
Then the courts immediately come in and say, we had put all of this on pause pending the results of the referendum, because if the referendum voted not to approve this procedural change, there would have been nothing to adjudicate and it would have become moot.
Because they voted to ratify the redistricting, then it was a live issue.
And then the court said, no, it didn't respect the specific rules of the state constitution.
Which said, I'm trying to understand.
I mean, I understand the wording of it.
It's just like how it actually plays out.
The state constitution required two votes separated by a general election.
So, two legislative assembly votes separated by a general election.
And apparently, I mean, when they held their first vote, it was in the early voting of the general election.
And then they wanted to claim that the general election was the general election interim in between the two legislative sessions when it wasn't.
And the Supreme Court of the state came down and said 4 3.
You didn't respect your own procedural rules.
You rushed it like a bunch of dummies.
There was a good reason in the law why they had this, I don't want to say a cooling off period, but they wanted to make sure that constitutional amendments had the requisite forethought, mid thought, and afterthought.
And that's exactly why they did it.
To me, it seems like it's obviously the right decision.
Still, three judges said no, and people are flipping out because they were sold expectations that were unlawful, that they might have paid upwards of 70 some odd million dollars squandered in this venture.
What's your take on it?
Yeah, so we said at the time, That there was a 50 50 shot, in my opinion, that the case, the redistricting, get thrown out.
And the markets apparently had it at 5%.
I didn't know that prediction markets had it at 5%.
I would have given that out to everybody, but it's only poly market, which you got to be a little creative to access here in the U.S. VPNs are useful, folks.
It's a form of, you might say, never in right.
We're into one of those tonight, Robert.
But the reason was for twofold.
One was the constitutional amendment process in Virginia, Article 12.
I think what section is it?
Section one.
And what it does is it requires this deliberative process of multiple different chambers of the government, multiple different portions of the government giving approval before an amendment can happen.
And the point is, they don't want it rushed.
They don't want people in a spirit of a frenzy to run in and do it.
And so, what it requires is one session approves it.
Then there's an election.
Then the next legislature also approves it.
Then it goes to an election.
And here, what they did is they did, they first passed it in the middle of a first election, then, and then rushed it afterwards.
And so the court had an easy determination that that did meet Article 12.
The second aspect of it that they didn't have to deal with as much is the language clearly violates the Virginia Constitution requires nonpartisan, non preferential language in these kind of amendments.
Just state what the law is, don't spin it.
This amendment spun it.
And even then, it barely passed.
And the state thought because they got the Virginia Supreme Court to not intervene up front that they could get them to not intervene on the back end.
The second expectation is the legislature completely controls the Virginia courts.
So, for example, they do not have tenure for life like they do in the federal court system.
They do not have set tenures to a certain degree.
They have mandatory retirement ages.
And so the fear was that the Virginia Supreme Court would panic and would give in and capitulate to political pressure.
But to their credit, they didn't.
They laid out look, this is how the process is supposed to go.
Everybody knows it's supposed to be this process.
We waited because the state demanded we wait for the election.
So we waited for the election.
But that doesn't mean we're now going to concede anything to the state.
You don't get to say, wait until the election and then turn around and say, now it's too late after the election.
They're used to doing that, the government, in a lot of these cases.
So I say, election cases are not ripe in the spring, they're moot by summer, and there's latches by fall.
They're somehow never seasonal.
But the credit to the Virginia Supreme Court, I thought it was a 50 50 chance because the law was really that clear.
And to their credit, they followed the law for a majority did.
Now, that may not be the end of it because the Virginia state legislature is talking about changing, trying to determine, proclaim that the amendment process itself that allowed an independent commission was somehow unconstitutional.
I don't think they're going to get away with that.
But their other scam is to try to redistrict by changing the Virginia Supreme Court by literally going in and putting in a mandatory retirement age of 54.
Forcing the retirement of every Supreme Court judge and then hiring and putting in another seven judges.
So, you know, welcome to Democrats.
They understand power and that's it.
There's no law that limits them, no principle that restrains them.
It's just not part of their DNA these days.
Even though many Democrats in Virginia voted against this redistricting proposal because they didn't like, but Virginia, I mean, Democrats nationwide for about a decade now have prided themselves on how they like nonpartisan redistricting.
And now, once the mask is off, because that nonpartisan ended up being quite partisan indeed, snooker the Republicans into a lot of Democratically aligned districts in 2022.
The mask is off, and now everybody can see what there's a bunch of partisan hacks, and that was always a bunch of garbage.
They only believe in independent redistricting when Republicans are in control of some part of the government that decides redistricting.
So, the right decision.
I think ultimately these shenanigans by the Virginia legislature won't work, but you can't rule it out.
We'll see, but my guess is the Virginia House seats look like they did before this redistricting race.
While, you know, because of the Voting Rights Act decision, this is one of the popular questions on the board, you're likely going to see at least one district.
Alabama's asking the Supreme Court to recognize the invalidation of the opinion that made them do two racial districts in the first place.
So they're going to go back to one racial district.
AI Slop and Copyright Battles00:14:30
So that will add one to the Republican margin.
South Carolina is likely to do the same, Tennessee has already done the same.
Louisiana is likely to do the same.
Florida's already done the same.
So, the net effect of the redistricting wars, as they were colloquially called, will probably be Republicans, by most independent third party metrics, gaining about 10 seats net from where they started out.
Not that it can save the House necessarily.
That's what I was going to say.
If you want to know that, tune in tomorrow at 6 p.m. Eastern Time.
What are the odds with Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily on locals, Rumble, and YouTube?
He's also surveying the Thomas Massey House.
Which is up a week from Tuesday.
So, we're going to discuss the Senate.
We're going to discuss the impact of the Voting Rights Act on the probabilities of Republicans keeping the House.
What's the probability they keep the Senate?
What if this looks like 1974?
What does that Senate map look like in terms of the contextual circumstances taking place?
We'll do all of that on What Are the Odds this Monday, 6 p.m. Eastern Time, People's Pundit Daily, Local, Rumble, and YouTube.
Now, just so that I don't lose it, because I saw Nate, the lawyer, in the house over on Commit Tube, and I don't know, it might be a fun question.
I'm not sure exactly what's going on with it, but would love to hear your thoughts on Ben Shapiro versus Megan and Tucker.
I mean, in the broad sense of the infighting that's going on, Well, I think it depends on what your metric is.
If you're looking at future sustainability in terms of public influence, Ben Shapiro has been fading badly.
Daily Wire had to lay a lot of people off.
Though most of that is due to bad decisions by.
Remember, way back, we had this debate in Steven Crowder, and I said, Jeremy Boring is one of the dumbest CEOs on the planet.
And people didn't know what I knew in certain respects.
It wasn't just how he handled Crowder, it was that a buddy of mine who is good and was one of the up and coming great action directors who left that to engage in.
The court of public opinion did a great video on the history of the Fed and the central banking system that's animated, gave it away for free.
It's literally got hundreds of millions of views around the world over the last decade.
It was before animation was cool.
He was ahead of the curve.
But he was almost hired by the Daily Wire to do their movie TV production.
And he laid out here's what you want to do.
Don't try to compete with Disney.
You're trying to do something different.
You want to go broad scale.
You don't want to spend too much money on select vanity projects.
You're looking to spend a low amount of money, five to 10 projects, and you're looking for one or two to make all the money.
They just ignored pretty much everything he said.
They're like, no, no, no, Jeremy Boring, I know what to do.
I'm the next Hollywood studio guy, just hear the Daily Wire.
And what happened is he was in total disaster, finally got shit canned about a year ago.
But the Daily Wire financial ramifications have just been hitting him and hitting him and hitting him.
Then Jordan Peterson, who was one of their big cash cows, unfortunately has a lot of health issues at the moment.
So that took out that side of their equation.
Candace Owens, they lost for a range of reasons that are rather apparent.
Steven Crowder, that they got into an unnecessary, in my view, PR war with.
And so when you aggregate all those things, they were already diminishing and in deep economic trouble because they'd gambled way too much on these TV shows and films.
And then you got Benji Shapiro deciding to wage war on Tucker Carlson, on Megyn Kelly, on Alex Jones, on anybody who's war skeptical about the Iran war or says the Epstein files matter and handling it has been a mishandling by the administration.
And what's happening is that wing, that neocon, there are a lot of people who watched Shapiro who didn't fully appreciate.
Who saw him as the guy who owns the libs on cultural issues?
They didn't know he's a huge Israel First guy.
He has said publicly he is for American conservatism only as long as it is going to defend Israel.
People can look this up online.
I'm not making something up here.
He's not bashful about this fact.
As Israel First has become a political pariah as an issue in the United States, his influence was going to shrink.
And then you've got other factors going on at the same time.
You've got whatever YouTube is doing.
YouTube is clearly promoting AI slop.
And then the name of taking down AI slop is taking down a whole bunch of independent channels.
35 million subscribers of different independent content creators wiped out.
They had no AI at all.
So it looks like what classic YouTube, in order to deal with AI slop, how do they deal with it?
With AI slop.
They used AI slop.
And so they produced even more AI slop.
What's amazing is I had on the lawyer.
His name is Dave the lawyer.
We got Nate the lawyer and Dave the lawyer up in Florida who got his channel demonetized just like that after years.
And I could maybe understand the argument where they say, If you're posting clips and there's, you know, clips of even public domain stuff, I don't know.
I mean, that they admitted you into the partnership program and then unilaterally and capriciously destroy whatever income you had derived from that.
When is somebody going to sue for if unjust enrichment?
I think is the best argument that I don't think has ever been tried yet.
I mean, deceptive business practices.
Those waivers.
That's the crazy YouTube contract, got to go to arbitration, waive this, waive that.
In fact, we'll get into the Tiger Woods context.
I mean, when you somehow wake up and you waive your fourth and fifth amendment rights without knowing it.
Just because some cop pulls you over on the side of the road.
So, you know, but it's a similar kind of dynamic.
That's the hurdle with suing YouTube.
I mean, we looked, I tried to bring that suit years ago, and we established the basis by which Trump brought the suit.
I was co counsel in the case against, for Trump against Google and YouTube, and they settled that.
But that was heavily, they settled it after Trump got elected president.
So I'm not, you know, I think they would have had no problem going forward because otherwise they've won all those, unfortunately.
We've got to really look at changing the law.
And it starts with the federal law.
And I know people like Holly are considering it.
Section 230 and the like.
But, you know, until then.
Oh, which reminds me something the chat reminded me.
Happy Mother's Day to all the mamas out there, mamas and grandmamas and other mamas.
I was going to make a joke, but I don't want to politicize Mother's Day.
But there's, you know, there's so many good jokes.
Happy birthday to.
I was going to create a Justin Trudeau parody account and say, you know, attribute to him a statement.
Happy Mother's Day, especially to all those mothers born with penises.
We know how difficult this day is for you.
But I'm, that's not my genre of commentary or critique or, or, But I'm sure someone already made the joke.
Robert, just because I like fact checking you in real time, let me bring up the.
This may or may not be the specific statement, but it's certainly going to be good enough.
What has been widely cited and criticized is a 2022 statement he made in a QA in Israel about his personal loyalty to the United States.
When asked about the possibility of fleeing the U.S. as a Jew, he replied, The existence of the state of Israel is the single greatest guarantor of my loyalty to the United States, frankly, because Israel exists.
That means the United States is going to be a more welcoming place for me.
Because Israel's there as a backstop in case anything should go wrong.
And that might not be as bad as a, or that might not be the perfectly relevant one.
It is true.
He's openly, and he believes it's critical, essential, and it's one of the, it's the number one, like if the Democratic Party became the protector of Israel and the Republican Party said we should cut off all Israel aid, Ben Shapiro would become a Democrat.
Yeah, well, that's, I mean, it is the, it's not even that the Democrat Party has abandoned Jews.
I mean, they just abandon every token minority that they ever exploit.
To rise to power and then throw them under the bus, like they've done with the gays, like they've done with the lesbians, and like they've done with minorities, blacks, Latinos.
Once they've used them and exploited, and once they've assured that they've gotten enough of their, you know, I say mindless following, Jewish community included, they then throw them under the bus.
And it takes like an election or two before the demographic shifts a little bit to the material sense.
Yes.
Try to think of the best transition from there, but I don't know if there is other than.
Oh, no, I got one.
It was, hold on.
I have it in the backdrop here.
It was.
I screwed it up.
Okay, well, forget it.
Well, okay.
One, speaking of AI slop.
Okay, that's good enough.
Speaking of AI slop, it was requested to be added at a late stage, Robert.
I haven't heard about any concrete action taken by The Onion to copy, claim, or strike content that was Alex Jones' content that they might now argue that they have copyright protection or copyright ownership of, despite the fact that Alex Jones deliberately put everything that Infowars did. In the public domain and abandoned any and all copyright that he could claim to it.
I saw a couple of posts and I think I was tagged in one.
I'm not sure if it was from Owen Schroer or maybe Harrison Faulkner.
Maybe it was from Harrison, the Harrison from Infowars.
That apparently, I don't know, is The Onion actually doing this now and some social media platforms complying with copyright claims on Infowars material?
Or have you not heard any of this in actual practice?
What I knew is Infowars channels were getting struck, or anybody that was rebroadcasting it of old Infowars channels, because now Alex Jones is at Alex Jones Live.
He's no longer at Infowars in terms of a brand or web domain.
Due to all the craziness of the Sandy Hook related cases and bankruptcy proceedings.
But he's there at Alex Jones Live still.
Alex, still Alex.
Nothing's going to defeat that.
But so, Alex Jones, for those that don't know, for the entire length of time that Infowars existed, Alex gave up and publicly gave up any copyright or trademark claim on anything that he produced.
So, anybody is allowed to reproduce any Infowars content.
And there is no copyright capable claim against any material created prior to the takeover by these weird onion guys.
And these are not the original onion guys.
For people that may remember the old school onion, which had a great article, it was written by a ferret, says, I hate my stinking hippie owner.
That was just classic.
I remember reading that.
It was written in my, where I went to law school in Madtown, Madison, Wisconsin.
Now this guy's like a real weird freak, talks about drinking blood and stuff.
The guy's just whacked.
I'm not even going to bring it up.
It was such a bad parody of Alex Jones, but.
Yeah, exactly.
Or the guy's just a freak.
I don't know.
But if you, I mean, he's got some weird history.
Let's put it that way.
We wouldn't be surprised if, you know, he's not somebody you're going to let babysit your kids.
Let's put it that way.
Clown outfit or not.
He's got a little John Wayne Gacy vibe going on.
But so if you look at the legally, there's no basis for them.
They didn't take over anything other than a web domain and a name because he didn't copyright any of it, didn't claim any copyright, never didn't claim trademarked any of it.
So, you can't complain about anybody using the title InfoWars.
You can't complain about anybody using any content created by Alex Jones.
So, if they are, it's in bad faith.
I suspect that given that this happened at the same time that there was a massive wipeout of a bunch of other channels, that it's likely got caught up in that part one.
Part two, YouTube has long gone after and struck anything that produced InfoWars content.
That was my earliest experience with the corruption they struck and took down my video breaking down the deposition that you were the attorney in.
On the basis of, I think it was hate speech.
And then it came back up.
But I'll just because it had the words Alex Jones or Infowars in it.
So it's YouTube still doing YouTube.
And so I think that's what's going on there.
It's interesting.
I'm looking it up now and I want to see what answer AI gives.
And it's saying that he was, they're saying that Alex Jones has never publicly waived in whatever formal process it thinks is required copyright.
They're over.
They're completely wrong.
They can find them on video saying exactly that.
Over and over and over and over again.
So that's, you know, AI gets so much stuff wrong.
I mean, it's like there's more talk that we did, in fact, use AI to pick targets in Iran, that Israel, in fact, is doing this systematically.
Remember, they got deep ties to Palantir, that weird freak that runs Palantir, that they were doing that in Lebanon.
And that's why they keep hitting.
And apparently, AI has, despite giving, even when giving specific instructions to avoid civilian targets, it keeps picking civilian targets.
Anybody that studied AI in detail knows we do not have generative artificial intelligence.
We don't.
It's a math thing trying to guess the next word in the terms of its large language materials.
Anybody that's used it for law, wrong at least half the time.
Medicine, wrong at least half the time.
People that are pouring money into this are suckers.
I'm sorry.
I mean, this thing is not only going to, this thing is a disaster waiting to happen.
This isn't like Terminator, it's Terminator, but retarded.
Just by way of example.
So last week, Manny, my speaking of retarded dog, I dropped a grape on the ground by accident.
The dog is a pig and just gobbles it up.
Then one of my kids says, Grapes are toxic for dogs.
Like, what are you talking about?
I've had dogs my entire life, never heard this.
I Google it.
And it says, even one grape can cause some sort of toxic reaction and kidney failure in a dog.
So I start freaking out.
And then I call my doctor, I got Dr. Drew on text for my personal stuff.
And then I got my doctor Gilmore up on text in Canada.
And he's like, in his 30 years or whatever he's been in the practice, has never seen grape toxicity in dogs.
But my goodness, he said, when it came to COVID, when it came to anything medical, Google and this AI gives you wildly, what's the word, panic inducing results.
That I'm sure is great.
You know, you go get your dog detoxed, it's good for the vet business.
It's garbage.
My kids say you rely too much on AI.
I use it like a search engine because that's all it's good for.
And you see what it does to video of the shooter there.
Legal opinion, medical opinion, opinion about content.
I mean, for example, for AI to replace a lot of things, they say it needs to have about 99% accuracy in the workplace.
Even the best use of AI, they can't get it above 96%.
People think, oh, that's not a big deal.
It's a huge deal in a lot of these areas.
That 3% or 4% is the difference between disaster and success.
And so, all these people putting all this money in AI, I think they're going to discover this was not the second coming of the internet.
This was not the second coming of the railroads.
This was the second coming of tulips from the tulip mania.
Tulip Mania and Second Coming00:02:03
Let me, before we fall too far behind, and there's some rumble rants that we want to get to because they're fantastic.
Over here, we got Cultivated Mind.
Can we see this here?
No, we don't because I didn't bring it up yet.
Cultivated Mind, we're not covering it.
Says Viva and Barnes, your events look great.
Do you need any more sponsors?
We are supporting a Joel Salatin food conference around the same time.
Would love to finally meet.
Cultivated Mind makes amazing.
I would say it's just a.
If you go to Barnes Law LLP, is it Peter.com, is a contact page that goes to the whole team.
Just contact us, reference this, and I'll get it.
Yeah, no, I've got Cultivated Mind.
I think we've been in touch and sent some amazing stuff for our dogs, and it's great.
Speaking of which, you know what I need is a special snack.
We're going to have, by the way, we're going to have a White House chef, longtime White House chef, coming down and doing the dinner and the meals for 1776 Law Center.
He's been, you know, he was back from the Bushes and Clinton's, all that.
But you're talking about one of the top chefs in the world coming down to volunteer services.
But we got to have, we're going to have some Lil Debbie's and some Amish special Amos Miller food items there.
But we got to have some Biltong.
We got to have some Biltong snacks during the day.
You know, we got, it's a packed day.
It was like 10 hours one day, six hours the next day, you know, 15 hours of great content, high end content.
So what you need for that to keep your mind going, boom, you need a little Biltong.
And we're going to get the ghost pepper or the, not the wag, the Piri Piri is nice.
We're going to get the ghost wagyu that is super spicy.
That'll wake you up from the dead.
Coffee Crew Mocha says, Those that give their opinion to influencers have no genuine thought within themselves.
As I watch all of these influencers speak, I wonder if they are just listening to the ghost on their shoulder.
And King of Biltong in the house says, Apologies, Viva.
We're driving today.
You will have to be creative.
Go to BiltongUSA.com for awesome Biltong.
Use code BARNS for 10% off.
I'm going to show everybody what Biltong looks like.
It's flipping amazing.
King of Biltong, Anton, is amazing stuff.
And thank you, as always, for the support.
Let me bring this one back out and let me just go to my email that has all of our lists because we want to get to.
There were a couple of.
Territorial Waters and British Ships00:08:44
Speaking of things that are straight, you know, some people think that the law governing the Strait of Hormuz, let's just say their opinion is kind of, I don't know, gay at times.
But it was debating with Adam Taggart.
Great guy, very nice guy.
There were people who thought he was like being sponsored by the Israelis or something.
That's not it.
Taggart's a very independent minded economic advisor, analyst.
You can go to his YouTube channel, Thoughtful Money.
Really good, creative, wide range of voices that he interviews.
But his perspective was one that's just very common in the West because, unfortunately, when it comes to any kind of war, both sides get propagandized like insanely.
Though I got to say, Iran's winning the propaganda war.
I mean, that explosive media, who, by the way, used to be Iran critics, they disliked the regime, but they don't like getting bombed even more.
So they make all these like Lego versions.
They even made a Lego version of Larry Johnson.
Somebody should make Lego versions of us.
That'd be cool.
Some Lego versions of even Barnes.
But so.
The question is, what is the law of the strait?
What law governs it?
What law might govern it?
The argument is that people are under the impression it's international waters and therefore certain things can and cannot be done in international waters.
And my understanding is it's not by any means, or at least given the narrowness of the strait.
I forget what it is, the proximity that is owned by a country within their shorelines.
I'm going to forget, is it three to five miles, three miles, five miles, where a country has.
Even that can be disputed because you've got these, so you've got, unless there's a specific treaty in place.
That the both parties that are to a conflict have signed, then you basically have legal principles that you can argue apply, but their degree of binding impact is in doubt because it's like, who's going to enforce it?
So, I mean, I will say this at the outset.
It hurts the American cause to be arguing anything about international law concerning navigation, concerning what everybody told us just three months ago about Venezuela.
Remember?
International law doesn't matter.
It's for losers, Barnes.
It's for wusses.
Stephen Miller might is right.
That's what matters.
Who's got the most power?
Now, all of a sudden, three months later, they're like, we didn't really mean that.
No, no, we actually meant legal principles apply.
We meant the law of nations.
Oops, sorry.
So that's problem number one.
You can't breach the same legal principles in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia, and now in Iran, seizing Russian ships.
Trump himself, I mean, God bless him.
He's still blunt.
He's like, I guess what we're doing is piracy.
Yeah, it's like pirates.
It's kind of fun.
Yeah, it's also kind of illegal.
But so putting that part aside, that the U.S. is not in the most morally A good posture, a principled posture to argue that they are the neutral arbiters and protectors of international law or the law of nations, as it's called in our constitution.
As to Iran, what has Iran signed?
Iran did not sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas.
That provides for what's called transit passage, which means if you are transiting through for commercial reasons, you can even use another country's territorial waters for that purpose.
They never signed that.
The United States hasn't signed it.
So, neither one of us are signatories in this conflict between Iran and the US as to control and access of the Straits of Hormuz.
So, then that takes us to well, is this even international waters such that you could argue more broadly from international principles of the law of navigation over the last several centuries?
I would highlight this has only really been the last couple of centuries because before then, everybody fought and laid claim to access.
This was one of the number one things fought for literally centuries between different warring tribes and civilizations controlling trade routes.
It's one of the oldest things in the Brits.
The reason why the Brits were all over the place.
And helped create all those Gulf states, including their literal physical borders, was because they loved controlling traffic through the Straits of Hormuz and the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean.
So, you know, that's where that history comes from.
But putting all that aside, so the Straits of our Moose is territorial waters, not international waters.
God bless Mike Walsh and Rubio and the rest for pretending it's international waters.
What's even worse for them is that, okay, if that's international waters and you can't interrupt traffic, what are we doing in Venezuela?
What are we doing in Cuba?
What are we doing blockading it all?
So, but there's that problem, putting aside that problem.
So, that is territorial waters.
And if you're not, if you don't recognize transit passage, which a country that is not a signatory to the United Nations law of the seas does not have to recognize, the more general principle that predates that over the last century is innocent passage, which means a country can use another country's territorial waters for the purposes of commercial traffic as long as they do not endanger the security of that nation.
And the position Iran has taken is that anybody that is transporting merchandise, also here, what's important.
Is what matters is the merchandise, not the crew, not the flag that the ship is under.
Ships are flagged under all kinds of crazy flags because of a whole bunch of tax reasons and regulatory reasons.
Most of them have no connection to the country they're flagged under.
That's an old, old game.
The really smart ones know how to just, like, oh, we're in trouble, raise a different flag.
Hey, George, get on there and register us in that country real quick.
That kind of thing.
If you know anything about shipping, it's a very unique world.
Let's put it that way.
So, they're not always the most strict.
Oh, but they're like the American revolutionary smugglers that founded the Sons of Liberty.
Before they were Sons of Liberty, they were Sons of Smugglers.
That was their specialty.
So, that's why they objected to certain tax impositions interfering with their smuggling trade.
The still great Americans.
I got some family ancestors there in the Sons of Liberty.
But the so if you look at that aspect of innocent passage, Iran says the merchandise is what matters, not the crew, not the nationality of the crew, not the nationality of the flag of the ship.
And they're saying if the merchandise comes from a country or is going to a country that is adverse to them, and they consider all the Gulf countries other than Oman militarily adverse to them, then they have the right to block that traffic.
They haven't always, though, they've said they will allow it to go through if the destination of the merchandise is to an ally or if the destination of the merchandise is to someone who cuts a deal with them, like Japan, South Korea, Philippines, some other countries have cut deals with them.
Paid him a little toll.
By the way, the idea of a toll is not some radical deviation from the norm.
People can look up the 1936 Montreux Convention on the Straits of, I'm going to mispronounce it badly again.
As I say, I mispronounce the word pronunciate, Boforus and the Daniels.
So, Turkey, after they whooped the Brits to World War I, said, We're going to control who comes through these straits here in the Black Sea.
We're going to decide, and you may have to pay a little administrative fee, I.D. a toll.
So, the idea that straits that access international waters have never, ever been stopped or told in modern history is simply wrong.
Just look up the 1936.
And what people are confusing so, the coastal waters that a country owns off its own coast, 12 nautical miles, 14 miles.
What people are confusing between the coastal waters that a country owns and passage through the strait, which is that you can't impede passage through the strait, noting that even though the US and Iran are not members of the UNCLOS, UNCLOS, Even though they're not members of it, I mean, I guess neither can then impede the traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, it depends on whether you're governed by the UN.
If you're governed by the UN Convention Law of the Seas, it's irrelevant whether it's territorial or international waters.
What matters is whether or not the intent of the passage is perceived by the territory of the country whose waters you're going through.
And so if it's transit passage, that's much more broadly than innocent passage.
By the way, we refuse to recognize either in the case of Venezuela.
We refuse to recognize either in the case of Cuba.
We repeatedly refuse to recognize either in seizing ships from Russian ships.
Like one of the mistakes that Adam Taggart had is he believed, based on American media presentations, That Iran was seizing neutrals' ships, but the U.S. wasn't.
In fact, Iran has made accommodation for when the destination of that ship is a neutral, whereas the U.S. has not.
The U.S. has seized ships, some of which are Chinese flagged, carrying merchandise heading to China or from China, and seized those ships to China's protest.
Beijing Visit and Trade Escalation00:04:33
We'll see the president's going to China this week, which I hope will mean we don't see an escalation of kinetic conflict until that visit to Beijing occurs.
Unfortunately, the break, I say breaking, the news of the day is that Trump has categorically said he doesn't like what Iran put forward as a peace deal.
And so it doesn't look like there's going to be even a declaration to do that, right?
Yes, but you tell me.
I want to know if you know, Robert.
You need people to think he's going to raise the kinetic conflict so that when at 8 30 in the morning he announces peace is just about to happen, his insider trader pals can maximize cash.
He's done this now four weekends in a row.
Trump is, in my view, implicated.
In the insider trading, that doesn't make it a crime necessarily, though.
We'll get to that.
Well, now hold on.
Hypothetically, if anyone wants to then invest, I don't know what you can do now that the markets are closed.
What markets could you possibly invest in now if you believe that this is what's going to happen?
There's some overnight futures markets involving oil markets that you can price already.
Same to a degree with the stock markets because they correlate.
That if they see that there's going to be peace or the probability or possibility of peace.
Now, a lot of people have been thinking that this will run out at some point, that the markets will figure out that Trump is gaming them.
But they haven't yet.
It doesn't matter how many times he does it.
They're like, oh, oh, here it is.
They, they, they, they, well, they want to believe it.
And because they want to believe it, they choose to believe it.
And so I think that he's driving up the cost, make the futures go higher.
And Elite, this is what he's done for four weekends in a row.
On over the weekend, he makes everybody think he's going to attack.
And then on Monday morning, he says there's going to be peace.
He's done this four weekends in a row.
And so, you know, what's the odds he doesn't try it again?
Especially if he's going to Beijing, he's going to want those markets to settle in a bit.
So, my guess is that's what he's going to do.
I'm just looking over at Kalshi to see if they have any markets because I don't mess around on Poly Market because of the whole.
Yeah, the closest would be where Brent might go, WTI might go, but he's going to do everything possible to keep that down this week while he's at Beijing.
But the long and short of it is Iran has a plausible argument for why they get to control the strait because they're saying they're carrying the merchandise of adversarial nations or their destination is an adversarial nation, and that endangers their security.
The United States has an argument that some of this is innocent passage that should be recognized as innocent passage coming through the Straits, either because of the flag that's on the ship, the nationality of the people on the ship, or in some cases, the merchandise or its destination.
So both have a claim.
I think if it went to some independent court following traditions of international law, I think Iran would probably have a leg up, primarily because the U.S. keeps breaching these, doesn't honor or respect these standards anywhere.
In the last six months, they have completely ignored him and thrown him out.
So, I mean, I argued at the time that doing this was a bad idea because it was going to encourage other people to do it.
It was going to encourage Russia to do it and China to do it.
I didn't fully anticipate that Iran would do it, though I did say all the way back, Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz.
You can go back to the summer of last year where you and I did the channel with the Duran and said this was going to happen.
Remember everybody that attacked us?
You guys are idiots.
You know what you're talking about?
You haven't closed Straits of Hormuz.
Good luck with relying on those kind of folks.
You know what?
I remember it because it's not that I didn't have an opinion on it.
It's like, you know, it wasn't even something that I would have thought of on my own, just because at the time, my learning curve with the Iran conflict has been roughly the same as my learning curve with the Russia Ukraine conflict.
And you're starting from.
Not full knowledge where certain things you remember hearing them, like, oh, yeah, so they're going to, I remember hearing it, they're going to close the Straits of Hormuz.
You go in, and then when it happens, you say, you know, when Heg Seth comes out and says they're open, it's if the Iranians stop firing on the ships.
And that's like, okay, how did nobody see this?
Oh, we did see it.
And we didn't need them to be open because it's great for the American economy.
We're going to drive all those empty vessels over to America.
But now, lo and behold, it's great that those Straits are back open and it'll greatly reduce the price of gas, which is now, you know, reaching record levels.
Which we've been doing, people don't know.
We are net importers of crude oil.
There's certain kinds of petroleum products we're net exporters of, but not crude oil.
The kind that we create isn't good for our refinery, so we export it.
But most of what we've been exporting, and the reason why gas and diesel has been spiking here in the US, is we've been emptying our own strategic reserves to send to foreign countries in order to hide and try to deflate the cost of this war.
Poisoned Dogs and Oil Prices00:04:18
And that's going to be a political issue that's going to blow back badly on the president if things don't get fixed fast.
And I don't think they're going to get fixed anytime fast, unfortunately.
Before we get into the insider trading one, let's just read a few of the tipped questions over on viva barnslaw.locals.com.
Robert, ask and ye shall receive.
I look far too handsome.
Oh, sorry, hold on.
You don't see this yet.
I look far too handsome as the Lego man in this particular Lego meme, but I was pretty good.
That's awesome.
I want to go ahead and save that image and just put it under Lego, and we're going to bring that out afterwards.
We got Finn Boy Slick says, I may not be as good as Iran's propaganda machine, but you ask and I deliver, Mr. Barnes.
We got Bill Brown, who's got a meme world leaders on their way.
To a climate conference to tell you how to take shorter showers.
We've got, I'll be back maybe.
This is, what is this?
This says, the AI we got says, Alien Baby.
Roostang says, Manny may not be the brightest dog, but he was smart enough to get a lawyer and a neuroscientist to adopt him and give him a forever home.
Loving the well dressed Vegas Barnes, says Chris Craft, USA Now, keep a safe distance six rats apart.
Are we, this is still on the screen, right?
Yeah, that's the one from X Files.
Remember that?
Oh, yeah, that's the one the aliens were going to give us to take over.
That, that would you know, the clips that come up afterwards.
There was that clip that came up during COVID of some model for some show before COVID, and his name was COVID, and he was designing some mask.
Uh, I'm going to come back to more of them in our Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com community, but a couple over on uh Rumble, which I think are important because I don't want anyone accusing me of downplaying grape toxicity.
Uh, Sweaty Zeus says, Grape toxicity is 100% fatally poisonous to dogs.
It's odd some dogs can eat several and be fine, some can die from a single grape.
Raisins are much worse, their kidneys shut down.
I'm not denying it, I'm just saying, you know.
In the chat, has any, for the prevalence of dogs in America and grapes in America, has anyone ever heard of a dog dying from eating grapes?
I mean, maybe eating a bag.
Our babu died at, well, he had a number of things, but he ate a bag of dry rice and that caused a whole slew of problems.
And when the rice came out.
I've heard of McAfee effect.
You know what that is?
You poison the guy's dogs, he kills you.
That's one way to ensure death somewhere.
But I'm not denying.
I'm just like, has anybody, I'm going to go to the chat and see, has anyone ever.
Heard of a dog dying from eating grapes?
I mean, one of my dogs ate a bunch of white chocolate, which doesn't have chocolate in it, and he just got sicker than the devil, but not because of the chocolate.
The only international law I know is when you are in international waters, you must protect yourselves from everyone.
A commercial fisherman told me that the U.S. Coast Guard told them to repel all.
Yeah, what goes on in international waters is crazy.
Coffee Crew Mocha says, How different is the structure of law that it can be defined separately by different countries?
Is international law as useless as the U.N. on diplomacy or functional?
The real international law is kind of, for the U.S. purposes, is.
Is it part of the law of nations recognized in the Constitution?
Is it a treaty that's the highest law of the land?
Or is it some sort of law governing international relations out of Congress?
Those are the sources of legal authority.
That's why treaties we've signed are really significant.
If something's a universe or just Kogan's principle, those are the principles that we hung people in Germany based on saying this applies to everybody no matter what, whenever, wherever.
So those are the sources of international law recognized in the United States as governing in our own conduct.
And then we've got a dominant one that's going to be a Biltong joke.
When you're going to drop some bucks on Jacob Castro, he loves to put Anton's firm and juicy meat in his mouth from Biltong USA.
And then I just saw another one just came in.
My dog became gravely ill.
That's why I sent it.
She has to get fluids and was sick for three days.
Died a couple months after from heart and kidney issues, but it is impossible to know.
I guess one question is how many did your dog eat?
Because it's one thing, dogs will binge.
And admittedly, I'm not denying it's a bad thing, but when I put that mouthful of dog fennel, And I thought I was going to die.
And then I, dog fennel people is not fennel.
It's toxic to humans.
And as I'm chewing on it, my wife Googles while I'm eating it and then call poison control.
And then I texted Dr. Drew and he's like, probably nothing to worry about, but just call poison control.
Insider Trading and Dog Deaths00:15:08
Robert, the segue from this, obviously, market manipulation, et cetera.
Before we get, no, you know, before we get into the lawyers who are a bunch of cheating bastards, if you didn't hate them enough, you don't hate them enough.
Investigations into potential, I don't know what we call it now, insider trading, profiting off the futures.
Or the predictive markets, as we've been seeing over and over again, you got to highlight some of the amounts because some people are arguing there's nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary about these trades, that these are commensurate with basically every, you know, massive trades being made on oil futures markets daily.
And you can't just pick one or two out that are not out of place to try to manufacture or identify or argue that there is insider information, bets being placed on these predictive markets based on insider intel.
If they're doing it, Robert, And they're already investigating it.
You know that if they lose power, or I don't know what the statute of limitations would be to impeach, convict, or criminally charge for this.
If they come back into power, you have to assume that the people who might be doing it now have to know that they might come back into power and go after them.
They went after them for nothing back in the day, you know, all of Trump's entourage for nothing.
If they can find something, they're going to do it.
And they have to know that maybe they're skirting a line here.
What are the objectively Statistically anomalous trades that have been made.
And what's the actual exposure?
You know, now we have some concrete, you know, investigations, or at least, you know, Democrats saying we're looking into this because we've read enough articles in AP and whatever about people profiting off of this war.
So there's the direct and indirect.
The direct to war profiteering is that the announcement will be made in Axios or on the president's truth account, and it will move the markets hard and fast, usually the oil commodity markets, the price of oil commodities in particular.
Sometimes that's West Texas, WTI.
Sometimes it's Brent or others.
But that somebody within about an hour, sometimes five minutes, sometimes 15, sometimes 30, sometimes up to an hour beforehand is making massive trades in the billions of dollars in anticipation of such an announcement being made.
So, yeah, the official story at least $2.6 billion in the last two months during this war, in which somebody has traded in advance.
And the key has been these amounts making hundreds of millions of dollars.
Are often placed within minutes of the President Trump either making an announcement on truth or Axios publishing it.
So much so that Axios came under public scrutiny this week.
Barack Ravid, I think, is his name, for a long time IDF intelligence guy who now is, you know, it's clear who is, you know, he's got tight sources in Israel and the United States.
But people are like, dude, this looks like you're tipping somebody off.
Now, I pointed out that I didn't think he was the source because this had also happened.
With just Trump Truth Post, that Ravi was not the originator of the news or information.
So that would lead to, okay, maybe somebody in the administration.
The legal theory.
So, one thing to know is that, as we discussed in the case of the Polymarket guy, the soldier, the commodities markets do not have the same insider trading rules as the security markets.
In the commodity markets, it's really designed to be device manipulation, you're running the company that puts out false information, so forth.
It's not clear that it legally applies to this set of circumstances.
So, their theory to try to make it a crime was to use the confidentiality or classification agreements of the soldier or the federal employee.
So, that would diminish the risk that a federal employee is the source of the information or the source of the trades, whether tipping or trading.
Because, as we'll get into the insider indictment, one way these things work is you have cutouts, you have the tipster, and you have the trader.
They're two different people, they're often not the same.
Well, what blows my mind when we get to the lawyers' one is how people are so stupid that they can't think of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge as opposed to delete this text afterwards.
But I should just say, I want to highlight always in writing, never in cash.
Sorry, never in writing, always in cash.
The question here is going to be the DOJ is probing it.
And so some people are going to say, okay, anybody who believes that the prosecution might be the cover up yet again, they're going to find some low level people to throw under the bus if they're going to.
They're not always going to have control over the DOJ, Robert.
And so, if anybody is up to shenanigans, even if they throw somebody under the bus now, barring a swath of preemptive pardons, which people think are coming in any event, another DOJ might go over after different people who might have had knowledge here.
But just let me read this for everybody so they can see this.
The DOJ, alongside the Commodities Future Trading Commission, investigating a series of suspiciously timed oil market trades that occurred just before major announcements regarding the Iran conflict, according to a media report published Thursday.
Federal officials are examining at least four trades, which traders collectively wagered more than $2.6 billion that the oil prices would fall shortly before they did, ABC News reported, citing sources.
And here you go.
Some people are just going to say that's not, I don't know what the aggregate market is trading oil futures in a day, but $2.6 billion is not that much, at least, you know, relative to everything.
But that's the, so those are the amounts, those are the trades, and that's the DOJ looking into it.
It won't always be Trump's DOJ.
So sorry, I cut you off.
Yeah, so the, but there's a high probability there's no crime here, especially if it's not being done by someone who's a federal employee.
And here there's a quartet of people, two people that may be connected to what are the insider war profiteering, that more direct.
There's also the indirect.
There's people that are part of contracts, get investments in companies, and then suddenly within a few months, those companies have sudden demand, maybe from the war for their product or from, Something derivative of the war about some energy component or something else.
And the same set of names keep showing up in all of these.
So, first we'll deal with the insider trading one.
There is somebody who, there are two people who are the likely source of Axios' reporting, who also would be on the inside of knowing when Trump is going to post something on truth, who are the official envoys to prepare peace negotiation in Iran, but who are not federal employees.
So, they would not have any confidential or classified information under the law.
And it's Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
They're the most likely suspects of insider trading, either as the tippers or the traders or both.
And now the question is this and play devil's advocate for those who are not here to defend themselves or raise their own defenses.
If the trades are being based off generic optimistic statements, it looks like we might have a good deal.
And then the question is, you know, like what people do with that and what they decide to wager with that type of information, which I guess the issue is like how black and white and gray does it have to be?
Hey, it looks like we might hold up people.
We might have a good deal coming in.
And, you know, don't worry, the end is not nigh.
And then they use that as the basis for a trade or an investment.
I don't think there's any law that criminalizes if it's Kushner and Witkoff doing it because they're not federal employees.
So they don't have any classification, classified or confidential information.
And they wouldn't be governed by it.
The commodities markets.
Generally, don't have that restriction.
The prediction markets, you don't yet have that restriction.
They would have the kind of connections to pull it off.
Now, the other most likely possibility is Israel.
If Trump is tipping off Israel as to what he's going to post or say before somebody in Israel is doing insider trade, that would be the second most likely suspect.
Now, who is making money on some of these big corporate deals on the backside?
There again, by the way, Witkoff and Kushner show up.
They've got deals with the Emiratis, they've got deals with the Saudis.
They've got deals connected to the Board of Peace.
They got deals connected to Israel.
But then hold on.
Why would the Saudis be as likely a culprit as well?
Assuming they have that inside information.
But what I mean there is it's like when the Saudis are going to buy something and then they have an investment in something that shows up as them buying it, but they got that investment before the Saudis did it.
Or say the Kazakhs in Kazakhstan.
Or say you bought into an Israeli drone company that suddenly has huge demand for drones because of the war.
Which the Trump brothers keep showing up in these.
They keep insisting, hey, it's just coincidence.
We have passive investment, all the rest, but it looks worse and worse and worse as time goes on.
Now, again, nothing about this is criminal.
I can't find how any of this would be criminal.
And it wouldn't shock me, especially knowing a certain Jared Kushner, that he didn't already have a lawyer.
Heck, maybe it was Todd Blanche, right before the administration even started, how this would be legal and not criminal.
And he'd have a good faith reliance defense.
But I think, but where this is going to hurt the most is not any of them.
Where it's going to hurt is President Trump in the impeachment investigations that are coming.
Because your average normie American is going to be shocked at where this likely leads.
Maybe it leads nowhere.
Maybe somebody out there just has the blessings of a brilliant, prescient individual that is directing all of this.
Maybe it's as Maradona said when he knocked that ball in the goal against England the hand of God.
Maybe that's what's playing the role here.
But I suspect otherwise.
And it's just, they're so aggressive about it.
You would think after it got called out again and again and again, Somebody would pull back.
Remember 9 11?
Somebody did a lot of insider trading on airline stocks.
They never publicly disclosed who it was.
My guess is we'll never find out this one either.
Well, and I want to bring it up because I do remember seeing a tweet from Cernovich about this.
And, you know, even again, like happy coincidence is one thing, lawful behavior, another.
But people's line in the center this was Trump officials read X closely is why many of us are grateful.
Did I bring this up here?
Okay, I did.
Notice that no one has announced an investigation into the unusual market activity happening whereby huge trades are made minutes before Trump posts Iran war.
It's the dog not barking.
Sometimes you have to bite your tongue for the greater good.
The pardons are bad enough.
War profiteering is a red line, is my red line.
Manipulating the market, insider trading around the lives of American armed forces members is a no go for me.
When was this one from March 27?
I remember reading that.
Grok is good for one thing pulling up tweets when I can remember the slightest tweet that I once read.
Go get me the link.
And that speaks to the other one.
And now it came out.
I've been, you know, some of us, Barris and I have been warning now for a year that this was coming, that Democrats are building files.
It's now publicly leaking that they're building files for potential impeachment investigations if they win the House in 2026.
And that is pay for play schemes, pay for play schemes concerning pardons, pay for play schemes concerning dismissals of civil fraud cases, criminal fraud cases, key TAM cases, pay for play schemes in the antitrust division.
Where you have felon, criminal, unregistered lobbyist Mike Davis making millions of dollars for to help big corporate America get sweetheart deals and antitrust.
They're investigating all of it because they have not kept a tight lid on this.
I mean, it's systematic.
It's what Mike is talking about.
Like he mentions, anybody that's observed Washington long enough can put one and one together as two.
But they make Hunter Biden look like a street level amateur by comparison in terms of corruption.
The investigations, and yeah, I draw a distinction between what I wouldn't approve of ethically and morally in terms of pay to play for pardons versus legally what would be illegal versus not of the present.
A lot of that wouldn't be illegal.
Well, that's the problem.
Some of these people are so stupid, though, like Mike Davis, they don't register, then they don't do a correct disclosure.
The company doesn't do a correct disclosure when it's a merger, and that's how that gets caught.
The mergers are where you can get caught, as a whole bunch of lawyers figured out this week.
So, somebody, Mike Davis, apparently was taking law classes from these guys that got indicted, running a multi lawyer, multi year, decade long scheme and scam to steal money from the markets based on their inside information at merger and acquisition parts of corporate law firms.
And just before we even get there, I just want to put a bow in the investigations that, you know, the impeachment and investigations.
If they want to, they're looking at pay to play for pardons.
We talked about it during the Hunter Biden pardons and, you know, barring.
There was no circumstance under it.
It could be an impeachable offense if it's determined that you're actually selling the pardons, but it can't be a criminal offense.
And there's no oversight, overview of a presidential pardon, even if you are.
Yeah, it's more an impeachment event.
It's not clear that that's a crime since it's been going on now for at least 50 years.
Well, hypothetically, there's a black and white paper that says, I will pay you a million dollars for the pardon.
There would be no way to overturn that.
Probably not.
There's an argument.
It's because of how much discretion he's vested with, but there's an argument of certain kinds of bribery charges might apply.
But then you run into presidential immunity statute principles.
Although then you run into the three bags the absolute, the presumptive, and the none because it's personal.
Okay, so.
What was the presidential immunity that came out this week that we were talking about?
That it was.
Oh, it was the Eugene Carroll.
We'll get there in a bit.
The circumstances around these lawyers, I mean, I don't know which law firms there are, or at least I can't recognize them if they're reputable, but it's a scheme.
Robert, do you remember Briex?
It was either diamonds or gold mining.
It was up in Canada.
It was the biggest scandal ever because they were basically falsifying all of the survey results or the assays, you know, about the fairly certain it was diamonds.
And Basically, I mean, everyone involved, there were lawyers, there were events, it was criminal to the core.
And we happen to know someone who made a substantial amount of money off it, but was actually one of the innocent people who had no information and just didn't get greedy and sold and didn't get taken down with it.
But lawyers are the scum of the earth.
There's a reason why they have the reputation.
The 95% give the other 5% a bad name.
Rumble Stock Rumblings and Lawyers00:07:20
And you had a scheme wherein all of these lawyers were using, they were texting, messaging, telling people to delete about upcoming mergers and all this inside information.
And it had been gone on for years.
I just don't know if the lawyers or the law firms in this were noteworthy, or it's just dumb criminals who happen to be lawyers this time doing dumb stuff and getting caught.
Well, it's kind of a combination.
I mean, I've always been the skeptical of the merger and acquisition folks.
You remember those guys from the, they're always like a bunch of nerds.
They're going, they work crazy hours when it's peak merger and acquisition time, when it's due diligence time.
But the temptation to inside trade must be off the charts because you know a certain company is going to go way up in value when this is announced.
And so it is, you had a bunch of lawyers working in these boutique corporate law firms all across the country that for a decade figured out how to tap into that information and trade on non public material information.
That was not known to the public, known to them in some matter of confidentiality.
In this case, because of their fiduciary duty as lawyers to their clients.
And now I think probably in their minds, they helped the clients, right?
They didn't hurt the clients by this advanced trading so that it wasn't a breach of their fiduciary duties.
They saw it, but it was still inside information.
They're trading on the equity markets.
Which does have strict laws, unlike the commodity markets, unlike the prediction markets.
The securities markets have very strict laws governing insider trading.
And then they were tipping other people off, sharing the money back and forth, a lot of information to have there.
As you pointed out, they would have been a little less trouble if they would have remembered never in writing.
I don't know how people can be so stupid to say, delete these messages.
Speak in code, for goodness sake.
Or at least, you know, me to say, hey, this is our code.
Like, we're going to talk about puppies and whatever.
It's how a lawyer taught me early in the career.
He's like, Barnes, I'm going to show you how to prepare your client for a deposition.
I was like, okay.
And they sat my client down.
My client didn't answer a single question.
The lawyers went there and said, Yeah, now they're going to ask this.
I'm pretty sure this is the answer, right?
And then they're probably going to ask this.
I'm sure you don't have that document, right?
Yeah, I'm sure.
I was like, Oh, that's how this all works.
He never coached them.
He never told them what to say.
He was just understanding, making sure he understood correctly what their testimony would be.
I was like, Oh, yes, okay.
And all verbal, by the way.
None of that was ever done in writing.
That lawyer is still a very well known lawyer in the state of Wisconsin, by the way.
They got into some legal fights with him back in the day.
So, but a smart lawyer, very skilled.
Taught me a lot.
But so, yes, the other key to this is they had cutouts, they had kickbacks.
You got to have other people be the face of the insider trading operation so that it's not easy to come back to them because you're not dumb enough to go and trade on your own.
No, then you got to give it to a shell corporation and then make sure that they know that when you issue the invoice to that shell corporation, that that's your commission and delete after, burn after reading.
Like a bunch of idiots, no doubt.
Uh, well, it still pales in comparison to the kind of money right now being inside trading in the White House.
Well, I didn't realize someone said, uh, Rumble stock has been making some rumblings here.
Let me see, I didn't realize it was up 11 on Friday or last day there, up to 832.
I know a lot of I have zero down to five bucks for a while.
I it was, yes, that was that's when you were that's when you want to.
I have a small amount, uh, and I'm not selling it anytime soon, but you know, that's when you want to double up when you can.
But no insider information, but thank goodness, I know people.
People get restless because people invest to make money, and you don't make money until the stock goes up.
But then, when the stock goes up and everybody sells, you know, everybody wants to take their profits.
Obviously, in it for the long run, spiritually, metaphysically, and physically, Rumble is the place to be.
But, Robert, I was going to ask a question.
Oh, Brie X. Let me just bring this up in case anybody, the real life story of Brie X.
It was gold, and it was, I think, someone ended up falling out of a helicopter as a result of this.
Brie X, the real story and scandal that inspired the movie Gold.
Now I got to go watch the movie.
Oh, I did see that movie.
What, like Matt McConaughey or somebody in that?
Somebody go to it?
I don't know.
I don't think I've seen gold, but I'm definitely going to watch it because it's often been said that the story of Calgary Brex Mineral had all the makings of a Hollywood script.
Gold, love, betrayal, and mystery.
Two decades after the stock market, darling, was declared a colossal hoax.
The miners.
Yeah, Matt McConaughey.
I was right.
I'm watching this.
Oh, dude, I'm watching this movie.
This is how I like to read it.
It was pretty solid.
It was solid.
Okay, good.
Yeah, that was up in Canada.
I don't know.
Never trust a Kanaka.
I know the thing is, like, my dad was a lawyer for 43 years at Stykeman Elliott.
I don't know anything about any of this.
I just, you know, it was a small community, and some people made a YouTube chat.
I know Barnes is on retainer with the big Muslim lobby.
Like, so the big Muslims, the mullahs, the Mossad, the Ruskis.
I'm on, you know, somebody send me the check because I ain't got it yet.
I'm not reading this one, Joe9611, because I'm not looking to get in trouble.
I'm not reading it.
It's not nice to make fun of the way people look, but thank you for the commie tube super chat there.
And then we got, dude.
Do you plan on making a video about Jack Densmore?
He just lost his appeal in Canadian court and released a video saying he's innocent in jail.
I have to look into it because I don't know what that is offhand and just not to follow too far.
I screenshotted that, so I'm going to see.
And we're not missing anything there.
And Robert, you could have to be small for a little second here.
Bring this one in.
Don't know why it defaults that.
There we go.
Rumble stock, rumblings.
Any thoughts?
I have none because I have no knowledge whatsoever.
I didn't actually know that it went up that much.
I mean, I think they should win their case in the Ninth Circuit, which would give them a big.
Multi billion dollar claim against Google, but uh, to my knowledge, there's no update on that yet.
No, and all that I know is what they're doing publicly the Rumble wallet is innovative beyond content creation, very useful, very useful.
It's amazing.
And uh, Mark Robert and I were branching out of the non political over on Rumble.
I know that they want to get more, yeah.
You did a movie breakdown of Citizen Kane.
Mark Robert always knows these like weird, eclectic historical facts about he, he, he, it's like he knows a part autist when it comes to movies.
There is, he, it's like he, he, it's like he's you know, live well, he's old enough, but he's like you know, he knows everybody and he knows everything.
It's amazing.
This week we're doing Deer Hunter on Thursday, and it's going to be amazing.
Oh, yeah.
Robert De Niro.
Oh, yeah.
And I've been watching the back.
I'm going to go back and revisit that movie because I remember the ending traumatized me as a kid.
Not watching it with my kid, but Thursday night, I'll give everybody the link.
Tip, he's busy winning a baseball game, stealing home base.
It was so.
Everyone in our locals community knows my kid, his team won the lead of whatever they're aged 8 to 11 baseball.
It was the most intense game ever because it came down to tide in the bottom of the sixth.
And then it was amazing.
They hit it and they won.
My kid was ecstatic.
My bud Barnwell.
He steals second, third, and man home.
Yeah, he just, they steal all the bases because the kids are like, whenever they drop a ball, you know, they can't throw it from wherever it is to a base.
So stealing is 90% of the game.
And then, you know, it all comes down to the pitcher.
And pitching is very tough.
So it's, look, it'll get higher quality, but there's some good players who can really.
Can we tell them like Ty Cobb to go spikes up when he goes into the bases?
Fake Meat in Texas Departments00:13:00
No, they, they, and they can't slide hand first.
It's an automatic out.
They have to slide feet first.
I'm going to teach them like Willie Mays from.
Major league.
CK Dolores says, My bud Barnes wants to do a What are the odds that every single damn asshole that might get incarcerated for violation of rights gets pardoned by 12 a.m.?
By the next.
I think there'll be some preemptive pardons for a lot of people.
At least that's what's leaked, unfortunately.
Yeah, well, that's a.
All those Eagles should remember that's not immunity for foreign crime.
So be careful about if you're violating some foreign nation's laws.
Just FYI.
And by the way, everybody who's watching on the landing page of Rumble right now, make sure that you go in, click on the video.
Hit, how many are we at?
We're at 498,000 or 499,000 subs on Rumble.
Click on the video.
You're over half a million.
Go in, click it, and click it or tick it.
That's how it works.
What do we move on to?
Oh, E. Jean Carroll.
That was the immunity question that came up in the video.
The lunatic, the whack job, who got a huge payday because they hate Trump in the New York courts.
And I won't belabor the point.
It's why Trump should not be celebrating the injustice against Alex Jones because it was done to him too.
But set that aside.
So she has an 83%.
She's got an $83.3 million award in her favor, I think $67 million punitive, because Trump defamed her when he said he did not sexually abuse her in a Bergdorf, Wahlberg, whatever the hell the name of the place is, changing room in 1996.
He asserts his innocence, calls her a batshit crazy lunatic, because that's what she is, in my humble opinion, and anybody else who has a lick of sense to them.
She sues him, goes through the corrupt New York courts because they corruptly changed a law that corruptly gave her an additional timeframe within which to sue.
That was for the sexual abuse one.
That was the other case.
Never mind.
But she sues him, gets a court to award her $83 million, $25 million for damages and $67 million for punitive, whatever, if that massing.
And Trump has appealed it now to the Court of Appeals of New York that did not overturn this decision.
And now he's going to take it to the Supreme Court, arguing immunity among other legal issues.
Eugene Carroll has consented or agreed to a stay or the suspension, a pause on the collection of the judgment.
I'm misunderstanding it, right?
That's because if she were to take that money, And it gets overturned, she'd have to return it with legal interest.
And unless you keep it in an interest bearing account, you might not make the interest on 83 million bucks, and she might actually be out of pocket because she's not a particularly wealthy woman.
And so she's made a strategic decision to not collect pending the appeal.
How does this end up, Robert?
This has to get to the Supreme Court.
I would hope so because it's an absurd, asinine, preposterous verdict that makes the entire legal system look bad, just like the Alex Jones cases do.
So I'd hope that somewhere, someday, somebody along the way, Figures out how ridiculous and preposterous this makes the legal system look.
And for the sake of protecting the integrity of the legal system, the perceived impartiality of the legal system, the legal system protects itself by striking down these ridiculous verdicts, whether against Trump or against Alex Jones.
And I'll read a couple of tip questions just because they're specifically on point right now over in vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
Ten bucks a year, people.
A hundred bucks if you get the entire year.
Ten bucks a month.
A hundred bucks for the entire year if you get it in one shot.
We got Chris Kraft who says nice.
I'm not sure what that was.
A great one on one.
Alex.
A little bit of ass.
A little bit of ass.
Very nice.
Let me just hear my.
Okay, I'm going to go up and down, but Alex Jones Sandy Hook situation has been presented in such a misleading way, says Gray 101.
I have acquaintances who think the lawsuit payment is because Alex Jones unalived the kids himself.
There is.
It was done on.
It was a kangaroo manufactured.
What's the word when Mandela.
I called it a 19th century Australia, all kangaroos and railroads.
Because those kangaroo judges railroading them daily.
And it's created false memories where people think Alex Jones even had a trial.
On the merits, which he didn't.
Solstrom says, The other week you spoke about the lawsuits against Alex Jones.
While I'm not the biggest fan, I have to agree that he was legally wronged in those suits.
My question is that you went off on about Abbott not doing anything.
Honest question, what could he have done that would be effective, Robert?
Frankly, you could have just publicly said something, and the Texas Supreme Court would have taken up the case because of their ties to Abbott.
We got Will RFK Jr. and Trump succeed with their MAHA efforts to protect against essential glyphosate use for years?
That's a great 101.
I didn't get the sarcasm until now.
I have to make sure I know I'm reading from Gray 101.
RJ Spain, 56, my 70th birthday on Tuesday.
I'm down 142 pounds in two years.
That is so amazing.
That's one hell of a scar.
What the heck happened there?
Who's that?
Louis surgery scar.
Dude, that's a big.
Okay, let's take that one out and let's keep going.
What do we move on to now, Robert?
All right, we got the other night.
One of the next top topics voted on by the board was the DOJ taking on Big Ag and Bill Gates trying to force his fake meat into the meat departments and taking and suing states that are saying you can't put your fake meat in the meat department and winning in Texas, no less.
Well, okay, so let's do the, I'll do the bill or I'll summarize the Bill Gates, then we'll get into the next one.
Texas has issued a law that is being challenged, or they've issued a, they promulgated a law that is now being challenged, which bans I screenshotted the description of the protein based fake meats.
And the basis for them issuing the ban is safety on the one hand, like we don't know what's in this and we don't know where it comes from and how they spawn this satanic meat from the pits of hell.
And also to protect cattle farmers in Texas and America's cattle industry, because if you can manufacture fake meat, it will never taste like real meat and I will never eat it.
But in theory, it could harm the meat industry.
Bill Gates says it's stifling innovation, it's stifling progress, and whatever, if it's done as some sort of crony legislative measure to protect the friends of the government, whatever, the friends of the government, Texas.
I do have, I'm not sure if the proclamation was only to keep it out of the meat market at grocery stores, which I didn't think it was.
I thought it was just an outright ban.
Inasmuch as I'd never eat the crap, I don't know how they, how do you justify legally banning something which I would imagine, I don't know how you.
Find yourself on this, but you'd make the same argument let people eat what they want so long as it's properly labeled and accurately described.
Yeah.
I mean, the issue here is marketing and labeling and in Texas.
And so, what Texas says is, look, you have a chemical chemistry experiment.
You're trying to call agriculture.
This doesn't come from anything.
This is totally, and you want to sell it as meat.
You want to market it as meat, and you want it stuck in the meat department when you go to the grocery store.
And Texas is like, nah, we're not doing this.
We got pride in our cattle.
We got pride in our steak.
We're not going to have your fake crap being sold.
Some of it belongs in a petri dish, not on my dinner dish.
And so, what they said is, you can't market it as meat.
And you can't have it in the meat department.
Now, you can still sell it.
You can still promote it.
You can still pitch it.
You just can't stick it in the meat department or tell people it's meat when it ain't.
So they sue, and the district court is in the Western District of Texas and Austin, which is always a problematic jurisdiction from a more conservative side of the aisle.
And what the court determined was that it violated the First Amendment.
Like they brought commerce clause claims, due process clause claims, everything under the sun.
And he said somehow it violates commercial speech First Amendment laws.
Now, the First Amendment laws are that as long as the state has a substantial interest, then it can regulate speech, even if that speech is truthful and concerns lawful conduct.
If it concerns anything that's deceptive or not lawful, then it does not have to permit that speech at all.
But it does have to permit it if it's lawful and not deceptive, unless it has a substantial interest and its mechanism of enforcing that substantial interest is narrowly tailored to require the restriction on commercial speech.
Here, the restriction was just you can't call something meat that ain't, and you can't stick it in the meat department.
Now, Bill Gates went and hired a couple of pollsters.
I can tell you, historically, courts ignore polling data.
But this court loved the polling data, ate it all up because it was right where he wanted to be, of course.
And this particular court wanted to be.
And so, consequently, the court said this violates the First Amendment.
It's our First Amendment right to call it meat because 90% of consumers, according to this poll, are not confused.
They know it's fake meat.
So, as long as they know it's fake meat, It's okay to call it meat.
It's okay to put in the meat department.
It's like, what's the logic of that?
I still don't understand that.
Because everybody knows it's a trick, it's no longer a trick.
And then again, it's not everybody, it's just 90, 95%, but that means 5%, 10% are still going to get tricked.
That's good enough to allow the law in the first place.
My understanding was that it was an outright ban on cultured, whatever, like the lab meat.
It wasn't just a question of where it could be sold and how it could be marketed, it was just a ban on doing it entirely.
In some states, that's the case, but that's not my understanding of what he struck down in the Texas context.
Struck down in the Texas context, the labeling and said you can, and the location of the sale of the product.
Now, other states, Mississippi, I believe, Florida, there's some other states that have banned it outright, banned it entirely, or banned it as being sold as this.
In other words, you can sell this product, you just can't sell it as meat.
You can't, but it's really a labeling requirement, a marketing requirement.
And so, but it was an interesting interpretation of using polling data.
Case, and that was the whole key to the decision.
The state probably should have done their own polling survey data.
And my guess is if you would have more broadly surveyed it, you would have found a good number of people who were still confused as to whether it had the qualities of meat, it had the biological effect of meat, so on and so forth.
That they knew it didn't come from a cow doesn't mean they didn't know it wasn't some form of meat when it's being marketed as meat, as chorizo, as sausage, as hamburger.
It ain't none of those things.
It's some crazy crap.
Bill Gates' complaint was you don't understand.
We have to have the eugenics agenda.
We have to kill off the population.
Come on, we must push it forward.
I must control the food supply.
Why is this guy buying up all the farmland when he doesn't want any actual food made on the farm?
Because he wants, why is he the number one guy in big pharma, big media, big tech?
All Bill Gates.
He wants to stick us on the dystopian control grid so he can screen us all out and get rid of 90% of us.
That's who he is.
He's like any dystopian bond level villain, like something from the TV show Fallout, those kind of vault kind of guys, vault tech kind of guys.
So that's what's really going on.
But Texas Ayers Culture Department said they're going to fight for this.
They said this is an experimental product that we have no idea of its health impact, that is completely mislabeled and marketed because it's being said it's something that everybody knows it ain't.
And that pretending that because everybody, a lot of people know it ain't, is somehow a solution.
It being sold as something it ain't, ain't a solution.
So we'll see how it goes up on appeal.
The dog just kicked my camera.
Watch, dude.
Yeah, no, what's amazing is you realize the weakness of AI.
Is that I'm looking at some of the sources for what they've claimed.
It comes from, it looks like a legal team representing and potentially mischaracterizing or oversimplifying what the ban is and how it relates.
But the bottom line, in your view, set aside whichever state it is, outright ban on production, manufacture, sale to the extent it's properly labeled would be a problem.
And obviously, I think it should be.
I would note that they're trying to do it to Amos Miller and Amish Farmers on a regular basis.
So, there's no consistency in the law here.
I agree.
As long as we're going to consistently say anybody can make food, produce food, distribute food, and purchase that food, as long as you have full informed consent, as long as that law is consistently applied, not just in favor of the Bill Gates, but against the Amish farmers.
We live in a world where people think Bill Gates, our governments, our courts think Bill Gates is more of a farmer than somebody that's a fifth generation Amish farmer in Lancaster County.
You couldn't have a more screwed up food regulation system than that.
Big Ag Monopolies and Farmers00:14:38
Well, I know the other one you're going to like as well because it involves.
I won't mention the name, but I'm sure we're going to hear Nancy come out of the Barnes.
They're looking into the DOJ's probing antitrust violations with some of the big meat, the big ag in America.
You want to field this one that has your public enemy number one in it?
This was going and was going to be progressing sooner under antitrust Justice Department Chief Gail Slater until Pay for Play Pam pushed her out.
Now that pay for play Pam has been sacked, we're seeing these cases that clearly she was the principal saboteur.
I still don't fully trust Todd Blanche Dubois, but it's rather obvious that Bondi was sitting on a bunch of cases concerning Comey, concerning Brendan, concerning Russiagate, concerning Big Ag, concerning a bunch of these because suddenly they all happen within a few weeks of her being gone.
I don't think so.
She was clearly the hurdle and the hindrance to these cases.
Now she's busy getting paid off, I'm sure.
Now that she's out, they can just write her big fat checks for all the work she did, covering up for corrupt corporations and others.
But so, for those that don't know, four big corporations control 85% of all of the food processing for meat, chicken, poultry, et cetera.
85%, just four American corporations.
They use that to dictate low prices to farmers.
They use a company called Agri stats to help manipulate the prices.
If you could flesh it out for people who don't fully appreciate this, because we've seen the same trend with media companies where the small ones just get bought up and it's small.
You don't notice it at first.
And then you end up with five media companies that control all of the syndication across America.
What was the historical evolution that we end up with four companies controlling the vast majority of the market?
This is what they're not talking about that Thomas Massey understands the best way to break through this.
How did these companies acquire this monopoly status?
They acquired it because local governments, state governments, and the federal government required you to use a very expensive processing permitting entity in order to get your food to market.
You could know, like, if you made the steak, you couldn't sell it to your neighbor.
You had to take it six hours, 10 hours, 20 hours away to some expensive processor.
So you got the cost of storing it, the cost of transporting it, the cost of the processor, the cost to bring it back and then send it out to market.
And what this did is it made it cost ineffective for your small producer to be able to effectively produce.
This is why Thomas Massey's Prime Act, which is part of the agriculture bill that has passed the House and is before the Senate, is so critical.
It would allow the farmer to process that food himself and sell it to you directly, as has been almost all of American history until the last couple of decades.
But that's the part they're not talking about.
They're not talking about the reason they have this monopoly.
Is the federal government creating this very expensive permitting and processing and inspection regime?
And I can tell you this: I just had raw milk from our farm, coastal pastures, up the street.
And I had this discussion with them as well.
It's like they make it cost-ineffective, prohibitively expensive to operate at the scale that Big Ag operates at.
And they cripple you and bankrupt you and deter you out of business through the regulation where you can't even kill chickens on your own property because they deem the blood to be something of a biotoxic hazard.
And they make you put all these chemicals in it.
All these, they also created standards for how the processor must process the food.
And it includes a whole bunch of things that people have identified as unhealthy and helps the big chemical companies, help the big ag companies that produce some of those products.
But if you're an Amos Miller, your customers recognize how dangerous that is.
So you don't do it.
What happens if you somehow still manage to break through this regulatory morass that's creating these big monopolies that they're then leveraging to fix prices all around the country?
Then they come after you directly.
I mean, it's amazing.
You know, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, I believe, has never gone after any of the big ag companies, yet they've gone after multiple Amish farmers like Amos Miller.
I mean, we're now on year eight of the state of Pennsylvania harassing Amos Miller.
That is how insane this is.
So, an Amish farmer who has never had a single customer complaint in 25 years about anything he has ever sold or distributed.
Is the number one target of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, while the big ag companies that repeatedly have to have food recalls every other week are never targeted by the Department of Agriculture because they are in the pockets of these big companies.
So, what they're not telling everybody is the reason for this monopoly and the best way to break up this monopoly isn't an antitrust, it's in deregulating this space.
But Democrats don't want to hear that.
And because Democrats don't want to hear that, You end up in a situation where basically the only remedy left is antitrust.
I'm all for that because they're clearly leveraging their antitrust to price fix.
That's part of the problem.
Now, the president's made this problem worse by wanting his buddy Malay to be able to have Argentine beef brought in and Brazilian beef brought in and foreign food products that don't have to meet any of these standards, by the way, brought in.
They just have to be comparable as how that country reports, which is a joke and a crock.
And the problem is right now, the reason why they went out and said this is they've been promising this for forever.
He promised this in his first term, promised it again, you know, about a year ago, promised it again three months ago.
The problem is food and fuel and fertilizer costs are going through the roof because of the Strait of Hormuz being effectively closed.
And because it is, that's where you get 30 to 40 to 50% of key fertilizers and other key products that go into the whole supply chain, but including the farmer supply chain.
And that is causing massive stress.
Also, farmers rely disproportionately on diesel.
Diesel costs are going through the roof.
You combine the two, farmers were already under stress from the Big Ag cartel, they're under massive stress as we speak.
And they're blamed for price hikes when they are losing money on the regular.
So I'm glad they're going to do something about antitrust, but it is only one part of the equation.
It needs to be much broader and totally revolutionary approach.
Real food freedom.
Thomas Massey's on the right path.
That's why they're obsessed with taking him out.
He's the number one advocate against big ag, number one advocate against the surveillance state by big tech, number one advocate against endless wars, number one advocate.
Against the military industrial complex.
Number one advocate against the Federal Reserve and central bankers.
So it's all massy, massy, massy, massy.
Number one guy who wants to expose the Epstein files and the Epstein class in every capacity.
And if they're serious about helping ag, they need to be serious about helping Amish farmers and all the other small farmers across the country.
And that means a revolution in how food is regulated and restoring the right of the ordinary person.
One of the big projects at 1776.
Law Center, the right of you, the individual, to decide what food goes into your body.
We should have real farm to table.
You should be able to buy the food from the farmer you know, not have to be dictated to by a few big ag cartels and their regulator pals in the state and federal governments.
If past this prologue, Robert, and not to cast any aspersions or make any accusations, we've seen DOJ investigations into antitrust.
And while they are encouraging in their inception, we've seen some of them get settled for.
Suspicious reasons.
And are there any of the same players potentially involved in this?
Does this end with closing the investigation because clients were well represented?
Well, people want to look at like the big Muslim empire, whatever they said they were saying I was on the payroll of.
Actually, it's key members connected to the Trump administration.
Jared Kushner's got huge money from the Emiratis, huge money from the Saudis, same as Whitcoff, dig into his real estate deals.
But not only that, the Ellicens, apparently they are a stalking horse for the Arab Muslims to take over CNN.
And Warner Brothers, including HBO and everything else.
An antitrust deal that should have never been, should not be pushed through, period.
But yeah, the big question you have to have is are some of these big ag companies like Tyson Foods, very similar to the name of Tyson, the famous Nazi company, probably just a coincidence.
Don Tyson likes to dance to the Bolivian marching band, you might say.
Donny Boy has lots of interesting habits.
Good friends with Bill Clinton in every way, Epstein way imaginable.
The But so, if they're going to, well, watch them put Mike Davis on the payroll and Will Chamberlain on the payroll.
And all of a sudden, this case gets sunk like so many others.
We're going to see if Todd Blanch is going to live up to any degree of the promises of this administration and reverse course and course correct from pay for play Pam, or is he going to continue the scams and schemes that have riddled this administration with corruption to such a degree its administration has been utterly ineffective at delivering on any of its promises in the Justice Department?
This case will be one of the big cases to watch in that regard.
And same with Brooke Rollins.
I know that I've talked to her, she is serious about this.
She's going to have to deliver on this and more if she wants to get credibility independent of this.
Because six months to a year from now, the Trump administration is going to be swimming in impeachment investigations.
And if you don't want to be one of those people swimming in impeachment investigations, make sure to do something on big ag corruption and stand up at least for the Amish farmers.
Robert, let me bring up a couple more here just real quick.
Like we got one coming from Cultivated Mind, which says if you are interested, you could interview John Moody on this topic.
He's the head of the Rogue Food. Center and does team up with Joel Salatin.
I'm going to screenshot that.
Talk to Joel Salatin.
Yeah, we had him up.
It'll be good to talk to old Joel, see how he's doing.
Domino One says, see everyone at everyone in about one hour and 24 minutes with Judge Maddie as the DJ tonight for Mothra's Day, Mother's Day.
CK Dolores, no guys, I meant that any legit incarcerations by this admin will be pardoned within the next 12 hours of the new Democrat admin and employed by the new D administrations.
Oh, sure, that's true too.
Yeah.
And let me do, let's do a few more over here.
We'll go back to like this, go over to locals and not fall too far behind on viva barnslaw.locals.com before we get to the one that I thought most people would be interested in is Tiger Woods.
Gray 101 says, now I'm approaching it for sarcasm.
Have the Amish learned from Trump that voting populist or Republicans ends in betrayal?
That's a serious question.
Yeah.
Send Massey a donation, says Appis Messy Messy Money Bomb.com to counteract the big foreign lobbies.
Guess who else has given to his opponent now?
Outed by one of the reporters, I think, Li Fang, who used to work at the Intercept, comes from the Glenn Greenwald tree.
I believe he was the one who outed it.
A Chinese company, a company that's got Chinese investments, is trying to also buy the race because apparently it wasn't enough for the Israel lobby to try to buy the race, for the Epstein class to buy the race.
But in the Kentucky 4th District, special Ed Gayrein, they're trying to help him sneak in.
Can't appear at a debate, can't show up and shake hands, can't talk to the public.
He's afraid of debates at elementary schools.
That's who Special Ed is.
Now, the Chinese government is funneling money into Special Ed's campaign through one of these cutout businesses.
But the American people answered loudly this week, raised $1.5 million in small donations from all across the country, saying our seats in the House of Representatives are not for sale to foreign lobbies.
No better way you can do that.
You can volunteer, volunteer.
Or if you can give something, give $2.
Just let your voice be heard.
Don't let foreign lobbies buy our members of Congress.
Blue CW Soldier with a beautiful Malinois says, We have survived one week with our Belgian Malinois Shepherd mix.
Here is Muriel.
She's already gained four or so pounds.
Beautiful, beautiful dog.
Don't listen to retarded AI and you won't dispel his retarded beliefs.
I did say that on X.
I got the tweet as well.
And I don't rely on it.
It's just like, you know, it's amazing when you click through the links and you realize that the summary on AI is bias, if not totally inaccurate.
A woman eating her meat.
Let's see.
This is beautiful.
This is AI meat.
The new meat.
Saul Strom says, I would say they should just label it non agricultural, produce meat.
But with what has happened to the education system, I'm not sure I would convey the correct message to a large portion of younger generations.
I invested very briefly.
I invested in Beyond Meat because it was the most shorted stock on the internet.
And it kept on going down.
When I broke even, I sold all that crap because betting on something's failure is probably bad juju.
We got USA Now who says Mexico pay for the wall, cheaper groceries, $1.99 gas, and the war in Ukraine release all the Epstein files, $5,000 dose check.
How much more do we get in here?
Okay.
And then we got crash.
I'm sure they will make it sound like an idiot, or I'm sure this will sound like an idiot or an old man.
But why do I hear unalienable so often?
How hard is it to say killer, unalive?
Because people think I don't want to say kill or murder or like, you know, sexual assault.
And so they have their code words for it.
People, I think people do it to be courteous so that they don't force you to say a word that gets you demonetized on commie tube, but screw that.
How far could the unfortunate backlash against Israelis dominating American leadership go?
Deportation of Israeli citizens.
They can't deport illegal aliens.
They're not going to be able to deport Israeli citizens.
Implied Consent and Fourth Amendment00:09:11
Tina Gwen, Robert, what is the status of the John Bolton indictments?
We haven't had a.
I don't remember that.
That's vaguely a trick of memory, but now I don't remember.
He was indicted.
I think it was about classified information for his book.
I don't think we've heard much about it.
I'll double check.
Oh, yes.
For some reason, I got Michael Bolton in my head.
Well, yes.
Captain Jack Sky.
Office space a little bit.
Remember the.
Yo, your name is Michael Bolton.
How great is it to be after that singer?
Remember that guy?
But yeah, we haven't heard any update.
And he's yipping on CNN all the time.
It's like, when is that trial going to happen?
Isn't Witkoff an official U.S. trade representative?
He has been officially negotiating on behalf of the president, even if not confirmed by the Senate.
Also, does Arthur Schwartz still work for JD Vance?
He's an envoy, but has, to my knowledge, no official federal employment position, just like Kushner.
Okay.
And Chris Kraft says, hold on.
This deserves a Lord have mercy.
Hold on.
Lord have mercy for Mighty Pay and others.
How does it put me back on this side?
Get me on back on the other side.
All right, Robert, I thought this would have been number one on the list.
The Tiger Woods implied, what is it called?
Refusal of a.
Implied consent.
Implied consent by refusing to submit to a breathalyzer or whatever.
Do you know that in Canada, Robert, and I had to double check this because I thought I was going crazy.
I'm not.
In Canada, they now passed a law that allows, if someone says, I saw him driving drunk, And they come to your house because someone said you were driving drunk.
And if you test above the limit within two hours of arriving, wherever it is, even if it happens to be home, you can be charged with DUI because they wanted to counter what they refer to as the bolus defense, which is if you show up drunk to a bar or your house and someone says, I saw him drunk driving.
And then you go and you chug something and say, No, I just had it when I got home.
I love how they also try to convince you it's not bullshit.
Look at this here.
Where was it?
The new law covers situations, and you can be convicted if you have a blood alcohol concentration at over 80 milligrams within two hours of driving.
This change was made to address this type of risky and dangerous behavior on our roads.
In Canada, they passed this, and it's law.
If your neighbor doesn't like you and says he shows up drunk, he was driving drunk, he came home, and you actually do go home within two hours, have a martini or whatever, and you're above the legal limit, they can demand that you submit to a whatever.
And if you don't, deemed a DUI.
Tiger Woods, when he had his incident, I was so hoping that he would actually play and win, but he's got to, you know, do what the PR says to do and take a step back and reflect.
Refused to submit to a roadside sobriety test or a test.
And it's deemed, if you, it's deemed, how does it work exactly?
That you've waived your right to refuse by virtue of the fact that you have a license on the roads.
And if you refuse to submit to the test, they will deduce negative inferences from it.
And whether or not this is a violation of, Fourth Amendment rights?
Well, really, it's like both Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
So there's a Fourth Amendment issue because it's a search and seizure of your body without your apparent, without your knowledgeable, informed, voluntary consent.
And your refusal to participate in a search or seizure cannot be used against you from an evidentiary perspective without violating the Fourth Amendment.
So there's the question about the negative inference component, there's the question about the informed consent component.
Then you have, in my view, the Fifth Amendment.
Now, the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas recognizes this, but no other justice has.
Though Gorsuch has suggested he might.
But historically, the Fifth Amendment, the language is a witness against yourself, period.
It doesn't say testify against yourself, it says witness against yourself.
What forms might you be a witness?
Well, you presenting for physical identification, you presenting for photographic identification, in person identification, fingerprinting identification, biometric identification, taking your blood, and so forth.
So to me, it's forcing you to be a witness against yourself.
And it doesn't have to incriminate you, just has to be something that can be you being a witness in ways the state wants to use against you.
People think it requires incrimination.
In my view, it doesn't, not historically.
Now, the courts have construed it in that manner often.
But unfortunately, the courts have said no, it only applies to the testimonial prevalence.
And if you're verbally testifying, then the Fifth Amendment applies, but to nowhere else.
So they can force you to do handwriting examples, they can force you to stand for physical identification, they can do biometric identification.
So instead, blood tests and breathalyzer tests, they haven't done under the Fifth Amendment like I think they should.
They instead do it under the Fourth Amendment, which I think equally applies, but is separate and independent, which says you're supposed to be secure in your person as well as your houses, your papers, et cetera, under the Fourth Amendment.
It gets unreasonable searches.
It's presumed to be unreasonable unless you have a warrant.
These cops don't.
By the way, it wouldn't take them very long to get one, right?
They pull somebody over, they say, they just call up a judge, hey, judge, here's what I got, blah, blah, magistrate, da, da, da, da, just need this.
They'd sign it right there.
You know, send it to them by email and boom, they have it in a minute.
Because the misconception is it could take so long that by the time they get it, you've already sobered up.
Correct.
It's all garbage, all hogwash, all lies, all an attempt to allow the state a way to violate your rights.
And so the other way they've got around it in this context is implied consent.
And the theory is that when you applied for your driver's license, you agreed that a cop could, if he had reasonable suspicion of you driving under the influence of some form of intoxicant, that you gave away your right.
To keep your license and at the same time refuse a breath or blood test.
What's unique here is taking that a whole other level and saying there's a negative evidentiary inference.
To me, all of the implied consent, and by the way, Supreme Court justices have suggested this.
Now, here's where this justices on the left are often better than the ones on the right.
The ones on the left, like Kagan, like Sotomayor, have been saying this makes no sense.
This is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation.
Nobody consented to nothing.
So, in the criminal rights context, but it's ultimately our civil rights context.
Is where the liberal Democratic judges end up being more originalist in their constitutional construction than our so called originalists on the right, who, when they see the cop, they see the badge and they bow right away.
Too many of them do.
And so we'll see what happens if this, but I hope the lower state levels, they've allowed this to go through.
But I think they should be challenging, challenging, challenging.
Now it's coming up in Tiger Woods' case in another context because they're trying to subpoena his medical records.
And they're saying that's a Fourth Amendment violation for you to try to subpoena it.
But to me, The implied consent laws with licenses are a Fourth Amendment violation.
To me, it's not a privilege for you to drive.
It's a constitutional right for you to travel, says so in the Constitution.
Right to travel between states is recognized as one of those rights.
So to me, I've always disagreed.
This is where I have an old school libertarian perspective.
I've never agreed that you should be required before you're allowed to drive to pass a state test and get a license.
I never recognized that as a state prerogative or privilege.
I get the idea you want secure and safe roads.
How well has that really worked, by the way?
But putting that aside, They always give you these licenses, and then all the strings come in.
You got to give up this right.
You got to give up that right.
You got to give up another right.
For something as fundamental as being able to get from here to there, that's my problem with it.
But I also have a problem with it because it's not implied consent.
Everybody knows it's not implied consent.
Nobody sits there and says, oh, okay, I really agree to all this.
It's also coercion.
The whole point of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment is not to allow the coercive power of the state to take away your ability to defend and protect yourself from the state, from the intrusion and incursion of the state, from the imposition and interrogation of the state.
And that right is eviscerated if you are allowed through saying, if you want to be able to go to work, if you want to be able to buy food, if you want to be able to take your kid to school, you've got to forfeit your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights as a condition of it.
It's the kind of unconstitutional conditions we've recognized in a wide range of other contexts.
So I think they violated Tiger Woods' rights, but I don't expect the courts to say so anytime soon.
I was trying to see if I could pull up the article to what was their name?
The Amish folk who refused to put the yellow triangles or the orange triangles on their carriages.
What was his name?
Oh, come on.
It was so ironic, but it was just because they're like, Yeah, they're like, that's just showy.
You want me to show off?
I'm not going to show off.
That's against my religion.
It's fascinating why they did that.
Well, it's also amazing when you say, like, nobody would deem getting a license as a consent to this type of stuff.
I'm convinced if you asked 16, 7, my daughter's now getting her license, they would say, Yeah, that's what I will sign away to have the privilege of having a license.
Well, if you got TSA, do you remember when you could go through an airport without any security?
High Capacity Magazines and Rights00:14:12
I do.
I remember being on planes when you could smoke.
Like, I, I, I, there's a real good thing.
Let up a seat go, get up there, boom, yeah, boom.
Let me double check my memory.
I think, I think they outlawed smoking in 80, 87.
When I think in different countries, they did it at different times, if I recall correctly.
It's funny.
Look at 1990.
Smoking was banned on US domestic in 1990.
Robert, this is how we know we're getting freaking old.
Let me see.
In Canada, 86, and it was, they started, but then it occurred.
Yeah.
88 to 89 to 90.
Dude, I remember it as like, First of all, I never objected to the smell.
I kind of like the smell of secondhand smoke.
It's like when I go to a casino, if I don't, and I don't go very often, if I don't smell smoke, it doesn't feel like a casino.
But we are, they had ashtrays on airplanes, Rob.
We'll never be back.
Say it again.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Oh, you just cut out briefly.
Oh, no, no.
Sorry.
Yeah, I don't know who cut out.
No, we had ashtrays on airplanes.
And the other day, my kid's looking through the wire bin and he says, What's this thing?
I was like, Oh, you see, that was what we used to stick into ashtray holders in cars to get electricity.
He's like, What's an at?
No, no, the lighter.
He's like, What's a lighter in your car?
We used to have those rings.
What do we have left, Rob?
We got a few more.
I mean, the other good move by DOJ was the Civil Rights Division suing Comorado to enforce the Second Amendment.
How many times do they have to do this now?
So, Colorado has issued a law prohibiting high capacity magazines, and this was 15 rounds or more.
And the DOJ is going after Colorado, saying this is a violation of Heller.
It's a violation of Bruin.
High capacity magazines, whatever you want to call them, have existed within.
You know, the standard which is, is it you know, generally part of the I don't want to say zeitgeist to fight is it widely used and widely available?
And the answer is yes.
How they decide to determine 15 rounds is high capacity, beyond that, it's even more lethal.
I just to refresh my own memory, Robert, was going like, what is it?
Like, the vast minority of gun crime is committed with assault rifles, whatever that is called, and uh, committed with high capacity magazines.
Maybe those stupid gangster guns that you see where they have like the whole mag and it's like an automatic handgun still doesn't seem very practical when you can't.
When the magazine is bigger than the handgun, I don't know how far you're getting with that, but it's not like there's even a rational nexus between gun violence and high capacity magazines to justify the prohibition in the first place.
What I also don't understand is how these states are running rogue or have historically run rogue to Bruin, to Heller, and they basically say, we're not going to respect it at a state level, piss off, take us back to the Supreme Court.
So is the DOJ doing something that might deter rogue states from continuing to defy Supreme Court precedent that is pretty clear and unequivocal?
Oh, yeah, no, it's very good work by them because what they define as a large capacity magazine is basically the kind of magazine that goes into an AR 15 and a wide range of weapons.
So it's universally used, it's very popularly used, it's necessary for critical weapons of self defense, like the AR 15 has been long recognized as.
And consequently, Colorado's complete ban on selling it, even possessing it, transferring it, is a violation of their Second Amendment rights.
And finally, the Justice Department is recognizing Second Amendment rights are.
Double right, like everything else.
And good for them to sue, good for them to start to deter this, not put the whole burden on various Second Amendment organizations to bring these suits and to start prosecuting them aggressively before the Biden administration, a future Democratic administration, rather, can undermine it the way the Biden administration did.
Someone in the chat had the idea of a little two year old Viva smoking cigarettes on a plane, and they're saying, Oh, you got to put it out.
And you're like, You commie.
That'd be a great little cartoon image.
But good work by Harmeet Dillon.
Yeah, and now people clip it.
It's not always criticism when they actually do good work.
And I was just looking it up just to refresh my memory.
Robert, do you know what the limit, magazine limits, magazine capacity limit is in Canada?
God, it's probably something terrible.
For a long arm, for a rifle, it's five.
And for a handgun, which are now basically criminalized, it's 10.
And you're not allowed keeping a firearm loaded in Canada.
So you have to keep your.
In Canada, you're only allowed to have a gun to shoot yourself, not somebody you paid your ass.
Well, that's the thing.
You know, the old, the first, you know, fiver for the person in the last.
I won't make that joke.
But in Canada, no, you got to call the cops and wait and leave cookies and cream out for your assaulters and thieves.
All right, so good, everybody.
Cases the FBI rating that Democratic state representative, state senator, been around about 30 plus years.
And people finally put the connection together because on the same, she has a cannabis shop in Portsmouth, which is down to the sort of Norfolk area where Eric Hunley lives.
And they also indicted somebody that was on a pot store in Norfolk.
And it's apparent that they're connected.
It looks like they were running, reading between the lines, looks like they're running a COVID scheme.
And there were so many of these.
Remember the congresswoman that just got kicked out of Florida for running a COVID scheme?
These are the co that when we just started writing checks like madmen, who said the CARES Act would be a disaster?
Thomas Massey.
Trump got mad at him for saying that, but Massey ended up dead right.
Well, this was just an open spigot for fraud.
Just poured out cash to everybody and anybody.
And it looks like that's where they got caught at multiple levels because you're supposed to say whether or not you have a criminal record, supposed to disclose all the details of what it's going to go for in terms of payroll.
What your business's practices are.
A lot of these people weren't in a position to either qualify because of a criminal record or because they didn't really meet the payroll requirements or other business requirements.
So they just fabricated it because they were just approving those contracts like mad.
And now it looks like it implicates another Democratic state representative.
Well, this is what, like, I, when I covered it, we didn't know why the raid had occurred.
People were, I was looking at the angle of the faux outrage by the hypocrites on the left saying, How was Fox News tipped off to this?
And I'm like, You mother effers don't remember Roger Stone.
Steve Bannon and everyone, James O'Keefe, New York Times is there, CNN is there, Jeff Clark.
So, like, but so FBI raids Senator Louise Lucas's Portland cannabis business.
Okay, so now that we know that they raided the cannabis business, what could be the nexus or the correlation?
There was another cannabis business in Norfolk that was connected to her that a person was indicted on the same day as the raid.
So, my guess is because they were indicting him, they didn't want her to get advance notice.
There's a connection between the two, and the connection is probably not the cannabis trade, but rather.
A COVID scam.
That's interesting.
I, I, uh, not that I have anything against marijuana.
I don't understand how adults do it.
And, you know, say it seems the cannabis trade and pornography are similar things.
Like, you know, whether or not you like it, it's up to you.
I think the industry is fun.
I don't, I don't know.
Are there, are there, it seems you get involved in the cannabis industry.
In my experience, uh, you're a sketchy person.
And if you're a Virginia lawmaker who's simultaneously involved in cannabis and distributorship, uh, yeah, you're sus to quote, um, I forget that guy's name now.
Ben Affleck out of Goodwill Hunting.
Okay.
Well, speaking of sus, remember that Chinese police station story that blew up for a little while and then just disappeared?
Well, we got confirmation about it up in Canada that the Chinese police stations, which were being used to basically surveil, blackmail, extort people in mainland China by going after their friends and relatives in Canada and the States.
What was the breaking news, Robert?
So a couple of them are going on trial, alleged to be.
Basically, spies.
But it's a federal indictment in New York.
The allegations that while running a Chinese police station disguised as helping Chinese citizens during COVID, he actually was an unregistered foreign agent working on behalf of the Chinese government to lobby in different ways the U.S. government and to track and trace various Chinese dissidents or anti China critics in the United States for the purposes of prosecuting or persecuting them, leveraging the resources the Chinese government had back at home through these.
Police stations.
So now, some of these cases, when they brought them indictment, the evidence hasn't added up and it's ended up much weaker.
So I'll be very curious.
I'm hoping either inner city press or somebody else covers it there in New York, a hot case in the Chinatown community there to see because their claim is these are just positive community efforts to connect people to the Chinese government that need services from the Chinese government.
To help them how to get a license, to help them how to navigate American society.
And then lo and behold, they are using this information to go and blackmail and support.
And that's the key.
Is that latter part happening?
And some of these trials, they've proven that, and some of these trials, they haven't.
So that's where it'll be interesting.
What evidence do they have that he was using it for the illicit purpose rather than the licit purpose?
Well, in this particular case, I think it's fairly safe to say and conclude it's happening as a matter of practice, certainly up in Canada.
Cooper, the.
Oh, what's the.
Hold on, Frank.
And now I'm going to forget Chris Cooper.
The Canadian journalist is covering it.
It's obvious it's happening.
Robert, there was one other thing I was just about to say.
Well, now I forgot.
Let me bring up, because I see a flattering comment, which is not say rare, but it always feels good.
To hear people.
That may be interesting with Trump going to China this week because remember, also, there's been a bunch of indictments of these Chinese workers or people connected to China that are bringing in things that could be used to set off another pandemic, could destroy a bunch of farm supplies.
We've got China buying up food, buying up land right next to our military bases.
Studying in our universities and reporting to.
Yeah, remember, and then Trump said we need him.
I was like, I don't think so.
We got Quixo says, Oh, Quixo's rated the stream.
Thank you, Quixo.
Just wanted to tell you, this is from CK Dolores, one, two, three.
Just wanted to tell you, I've loved and watched you for five years.
I love Viva's fair assessments.
He asks questions no one else asks.
I don't mind being told I'm stupid for asking you a dumb question.
Does that I bitch about no one ever asking?
No one else does that I bitch about no one ever asking.
I say, if I've got the question, there's probably several thousand people out there that got the question.
We've got to take the party on over to Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
Everybody, before you go anywhere, click.
Make sure that we, let's see here, are we on the, we're going to go raid someone in a bit.
Click in the stream, thumbs up, and subscribe.
Robert, what do you have to cover?
We've got one more big case we'll cover here, which is is surrogacy a 13th Amendment violation?
And then over at the after party at Rumble Premium or viva barnslaw.locals.com, we're going to cover Trump tariffs, fake discount class action against a big online seller, Marilyn Monroe's house, somebody made the mistake of buying it, an LA cop gets to walk even though he shot a girl in a department store, Minnesota public schools caught racially discriminating, and Uh, the ability of the auto people to shut off your car while you're driving,
thanks to a law that Massey fought, but the rest of the Republicans went along with, or a lot of them did.
The EU saying you've got to give welfare to people coming into your country, and a medical malpractice case.
So, those all be at the after party.
The big one we'll have here is the surrogacy 13th Amendment argument being made by the Attorney General of Florida.
And before we get there, just want to remind everybody so I've we uploaded the database, so we've got all of the episodes.
But last week was our first live episode on Rumble.
And this week it's going to be Deer Hunter, and it's going to be an awesome episode.
So, Thursday night, seven o'clock, I gave everybody the link, and it's on Rumble now.
We'll be live weekly on Rumble.
Robert, coming up this week, do you have anything?
Someone has made something of me wrestling.
Maybe a bunch of us wrestling.
I don't know about that.
Over in our locals community?
I don't know.
I just saw it in the live chat.
Hold on.
Let's bring it up.
We're going to do this in real time, see if we get into trouble here.
Boom.
Oh, that's right.
You were very profitable UFC yesterday.
Oh, Robin, I got 11 of 13.
And the thing is, the Clay Guida might have been a bad pick.
I would never bet against Tatsuro Taida.
I've got a couple of his cards, and I love the fighter, but I also love Joshua Van.
So I wasn't even angry with that.
There it is.
Five to one.
Five to one.
That's what this thing is.
What is it?
You said that's funny.
Oh, yeah.
I made a live show.
Dear goodness, is this horrifying?
That's Robert Gouvea.
That's great.
Oh my goodness, look at these little sausages.
So, yeah, Robert, it was a great, it was a great.
Anyone who I look, I don't tell people to bet, but at five to one, Strickland was never a five to one underdog, and that was one hell.
Did you hear what he said afterwards, Chris Connor?
What did he say?
He said, Man, I look ugly.
I look as a, I look so ugly, somebody's going to think I look like the Israeli lobby.
The guy's on a mission, and whether or not you like him, you can't, you can't, you got to love him, period.
Bill Brown says, Marijuana paid for my entire empire here, Viva.
Well, Bill is one of the, Bill, there are exceptions to every, you know, broad brush joke, but no, the, I up in Canada when marijuana became legalized, I knew people involved in the industry.
They were never, never people you'd let, you'd want babysitting your kids.
Put it that way.
Sadaka says in Michigan, the recently passed, they recently passed a law outlawing inherited guns.
Everyone in Michigan needs to have gun trusts if you want to pass your firearms to your family.
Oh, in Canada, they just misappropriated.
Since Trump is going to be a war whore, I am full for the annexation of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon, and Northwest Territories and turning the rest into a U.S. territory.
That's from Orion PD 911.
An example of stupid gun laws as created by politicians is Florida's bump stock ban, which bans bump stocks and anything that enhances the rate of fire of a firearm.
Under that law, Jerry McCulloch was a champion shooter.
Inherited Guns and Child Safety00:14:03
His finger is a felony because he can shoot a semi automatic faster than some regulated fully automatic firearms.
S. Wren says, on the Second Amendment, a few states have legislators that are trying to introduce a bill to force the state to facilitate full auto sales.
It's based on NFA language saying only the state can make the sale, but not to whom.
Okay.
When I was 10 years old, this is from Big Bad Bob.
I was driving trucks and tractors on the roads of highways.
Everybody accepted that as being perfectly okay for farmers' kids to drive large trucks and tractors.
I don't know if I would have accepted that.
All right, we'll get some more afterwards.
So this one is going to be a hot topic, especially since I know the way people are going to politically either not twist it or politically interpret it.
In Florida, there's an argument as to whether or not surrogacy is a modern form of slavery.
I don't even know, full disclosure.
This is where I get into fights with people on the internet where everyone says, you know, like a gay couple should not be able to traffic in children and buy children.
And I say, first of all, having known people who, for medical reasons, a heterosexual couple couldn't have children at a certain time and went with surrogacy and went with in vitro fertilization and preserved the eggs, I didn't actually ever realize that basically it's a fertilized.
It's a fertilized embryo, and arguments are that it's that's actually like you know, uh, a potential human.
That's like that's when you discard the ones.
I didn't really fully appreciate what you do with the fertilized embryo and how you can select based on physical attributes.
But having seen the necessity or at least the positive benefit of surrogacy in heterosexual couples, I don't draw the distinction at the sexual orientation of the couple who, out of necessity, obviously, when you're dealing with two men, you're going to need a surrogate, um, to engage in surrogacy for.
Procreation or for having your own family.
And I don't know how you make the argument at slavery when they get remunerated or compensated, although there are restrictions on the amount, et cetera, et cetera.
So Florida seems to now be declaring war on surrogacy.
Has there been any attempt to legislate a prohibition or are they sort of feeling out the waters right now in terms of public sentiment?
Well, it's really just the opposite.
Florida has a law that permits, explicitly permits surrogacy.
But the attorney general under Governor DeSantis is saying that law is unconstitutional.
He's saying it violates the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a form of involuntary servitude.
To whom?
To the surrogate mother, the woman who volunteers to do this and gets remunerated for doing it.
Correct.
Though also to a degree to the child.
So the historical aspect of this legally is this originally arose as a debate against abortion or against criminalizing abortion.
So the left initiated this about 30 years ago, arguing that they were forcing women to carry through to term and that there was a historical analog for that.
It was the breeding farms during slavery.
That's where you're getting this part of this slavery historical connection that slave women were forced to have children and carry the children to term because the child would then become property of the owner of that slave, and basically becomes a commodity, tradable commodity on the then slave markets.
So that was the sort of disfavorable historical analog.
The problem they had is under an originalist construction, abortion was mostly criminal at the time the 13th Amendment passed.
So it was very hard to argue the 13th Amendment.
Prohibited the criminalization of abortion when most states that passed the 13th Amendment criminalized abortion.
But so it's sort of faded out from that.
Surrogacy came up initially in the Baby M case in the 1980s.
A woman agreed to be a surrogate mother, but after she had the child, decided she didn't want to give up the child and said she's the natural born mother.
As such, she should have custody of the child and went through a massive round of litigation.
They made movies after that.
I absolutely remember that.
That was within my memory of a timeframe.
Here's the legal issue, and it's an interesting one that's being pursued.
I understand it from the pro life community's perspective.
It's the pro life community that picked this up about five to 10 years ago.
Uncomfortable with IVF, that IVF could be human beings but weren't being treated as human beings or being treated as basically cattle, that stem cells starting to be used for medical research and other things, that made them uncomfortable as well.
They see a soul, they don't see a stem cell, they don't see a fertilized embryo, they see a soul.
And for them, it's deeply disturbing that that could be treated at any level as a commodity.
And so for them, as that grew into surrogacy and all these states started passing laws allowing surrogacy, they're like, well, when does it, to them, there's no difference between that pregnant mother and an adult child.
Here's what's agreed the 13th Amendment does prohibit a parent from selling a born child.
So, in other words, that is considered something that the child can't consent to and that the parent can't agree to under the 13th Amendment.
So the question becomes, If they can't sell the child as once the child is alive, how is it they can sell the child by agreement in advance?
And so the Attorney General's argument is the 13th Amendment, to be consistent, cannot treat a nine month old in the womb any different than a born child.
And it cannot treat a born child any different because of a prior agreement than it could at the time if there had been no prior agreement.
And using the legacy of the slave.
Breeding as the historical concern that is being recreated.
And where they have something is it was the case that you couldn't sell a child at the time the 13th Amendment was passed.
That's the whole point and purpose and part of it passing.
It was a particular concern.
This book that somebody sent me, one of our board members, duly and constantly kept, is Sojourner Truth's Great Effort to Get Her Child Back from the South, saying that they had no right to label him a slave.
It has all the historical text and everything.
We may print out a bunch of them and give them out at the 1776 Law Center.
Some book stuff that we're going to give out to people that come.
A pocket constitution, an annotated constitution, some freedom planning provisions, and so forth, as part of those who are able to come to 1776 Law Center, which you can get those tickets to the website.
But so I think, as I was looking through, I first came out with the same impression that you had.
I was like, I'm going to be skeptical of this.
But as I started researching, I was like, well, I can see certain by analog and by example and where this could go.
Here's the concern some people have the technology is getting to a place where we could create.
An incubator class of underclass women that are forced to have children for other people.
It's like, where do we, when is it coercion?
When is it consent?
When is that something?
If you can't consent to sell a child at birth, how can you consent to sell the child before birth?
The argument is going to be, well, it's not selling right now.
Now it's just compensation for the process and the person is voluntarily, preemptively, what's the word I'm looking for?
Not donating.
What's it called?
Adopting.
It's a preemptive adoption and they're not being paid to stomach it.
And that's how some courts treat it, but they only do that after the birth.
So it's kind of, but then it's like, okay, could you sell it into adoption?
And then the courts have said, no, you can't.
You can't sell a child into adoption once the child is born.
So it's like, how exactly do we do it beforehand?
But I mean, there's people, Dave Rubin, you know, has used the benefit of these laws.
He's a huge DeSantis fan, huge Florida governor fan, Florida attorney general fan.
And I was like, Dave, have you been paying attention to the law?
They're saying you're the attorney general is saying you're a criminal, they're saying you're a human trafficker.
I haven't seen Dave cover this, he's busy attacking Tucker Carlson on a daily basis.
Dave, you might want to look a little closer.
You maybe don't want to stay in Florida if this goes through because it makes you a criminal human trafficker.
If this guy is right, an involuntary servitude violator, no less.
It can't be retroactive, Robert.
So it'll only be that this is recognized as involuntary servitude, and there's already laws on the books that make it a crime federally.
That's why the ramifications of this are massive, that is not really being covered by a lot of people.
Well, and I think that's why the courts will not go along with the attorney general's impression.
But it does intrigue me that people that have a personal interest in it are not commenting on it because they're too busy worrying about Tucker Carlson being critical of Israel.
God bless Dave.
Well, let me bring this up here.
There was one on topic, which was why this is all coming up again, Viva, is that single men have taken notice that they do not need a feminist horror show to have a child.
So the simp in Florida wants to stop single men.
And then Sean says, Did I miss it or have you covered Spazberger replaced the Supreme Court of Virginia?
Yeah.
All of them.
We're trying to.
That's only a plan.
That has not gone through yet.
No, I will.
I'll tell you, it is interesting where you, especially when you get.
Where do you draw the line?
How do you draw the line?
It's like the whole BBM debate all over again.
Yeah.
And that was 86.
Well, first of all, I always think that whoever carries it, I think, contractually, legally, reserves the right to renege on whatever agreement they had.
When that baby comes out, if she says she wants it, nobody's taking it away from her period.
That's the way it should be.
I agree with you there.
But no, then.
I sided with the mother.
The class prejudice against that mother was really nasty.
People can go back and look at it.
It was like, oh, this upper class professional family is the responsible, respectable one.
Of course.
I mean, and it's remembering that, that led me to think, ah, you know, I'm not as hostile to what the attorney general is trying to do down there as I initially started.
I'm not convinced of it by any stretch, but I'm not as hostile to it because I don't like the idea of an incubator class of people.
That idea I don't like.
Well, when I initially, and I still do support in vitro fertilization, I still did not fully appreciate that you are dealing with, whether or not you regard them as souls, fertilized eggs, and what do you do with them when you're done with them?
You discard them.
Like that's that is disturbing.
And the way they like trade and sell them and all that plant based on genetics and pick based on sex, you know, whatever, whatever feels dystopian.
What was that dystopian?
It was the one with like Ethan Hawke in it, remember?
Like Gatica, I think it was Gatica.
Yeah, yeah.
It reminded me of that when I was like, I don't know if I want the Bill Gates of the world up to this kind of thing.
You know what I mean?
At least Elon just impregnates all of them.
Well, I was thinking about Elon the other day.
I was like, I was as I was jogging, I was like, if I ever could, you know, ask, I don't know that he would ever answer these questions or even take kindly to being asked, but.
Yeah, the idea of having nine children or however many with various women, it's nice for continuing your seed.
But in terms of the likelihood of a child growing up well rounded, maximizing the odds of spreading the seed, but not maximizing those odds.
All right, so we're going to go raid.
First of all, everybody, come on over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com for the after party.
This is going to be also for Rumble Premium.
Come on over and $10 a month, people.
You don't even have to support it.
Some of the stuff is for supporters only.
But a lot of stuff is overloaded with memories.
Hush, hush his videos.
Oh, yeah.
I got it.
I'm going to watch it with my daughter.
I might have to rip it for my daughter because I want her to send it to her teacher about whether or not Watergate was an inside job to take out Nixon.
And that was a CIA operative.
Because, like, you know, for the first time, I'm talking to her about it.
And then you go online and you try to validate that theory.
And there's not a lick of any.
I was like, am I going crazy or did I just hallucinate this entire, even the evidence that I had in my mind?
So, Viva Barnes Law.
Locals.com.
We are going to go raid.
You may or may not like it.
I think we're going to go do Women Deserve Chivalry.
Toxic College Girl is Mean to Men.
This is whatever.
And it's on topic.
So we're going to go raid them.
Robert, what do you have coming up this week?
So tomorrow, 6 p.m. Eastern Time, live What Are the Odds with Richard Barris, People's Punnett Daily on Rumble, Locals, and YouTube.
We'll be breaking down how the Voting Rights Act decision and these redistricting actions Change the Democratic or Republican prospects for the House of Representatives in the 2026 elections?
And what might the Senate map look like for the 2026 election?
So it'll be a focus on the House and the Senate with a redistrict angle on the House and looking at if we have a 1974 type electoral environment with a major scandal, an economic cost of living crisis, an unpopular overseas war.
What did 1974 do and how might that translate?
To 2026, if you're operating under that model.
So, we're going to be breaking both of those down and answering questions at People's Pundit Daily on local Rumble and YouTube, and a little bit of an update on where Thomas Massey stands as his race is about eight days away.
Otherwise, go to 1776lawcenter.com.
Still get tickets for the annual conference, but tickets are shrinking by the day.
So, get them sooner rather than later because we got a hard cap.
So, once that cap is hit, finito.
So, that's at 1776lawcenter.com.
And I'll bring it up just so everybody can see it.
And I'll be live daily at three o'clock.
I'm trying to think of what I was going to say.
I'll probably have some good guests this weekend.
Just see how the weekend progresses.
Go and get a ticket, people, and we will see you all there.
And Robert, one last thing I'm going to ask the question here, and then we're going to switch into modes.
How do you feel about the populist movement and two picks in particular, Jim Carlin and Mark Lynch?
With that said, everybody, before you leave, subscribe, turn on notifications, yada, yada, yada.