Speaker 1: It seems like the world has gone crazy. And I've
Speaker 1: constantly said that the world we're going into is not
Speaker 1: the same as the world we're leaving behind. And I
Speaker 1: think it's apparent to anybody that's been paying attention. Nobody
Speaker 1: could have guessed that twelve or fourteen months ago we
Speaker 1: would be in this place today, that the world would
Speaker 1: have changed as much as we've had. Um. The world
Speaker 1: is changing, the laws are changing, and a lot of people,
Speaker 1: and myself included, believe that it's infringing upon our constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: We believe that the Constitution was written a way to
Speaker 1: protect the rights of the people, to limit the powers
Speaker 1: that the government has been given. Now that's open for
Speaker 1: the courts to decide. I have my opinion, other people
Speaker 1: have their's. But today I am joined with Robert Barnes.
Speaker 1: He is a constitutional law attorney. He deals with this
Speaker 1: on a regular basis. He has has many constitution sational cases,
Speaker 1: and we are going to dig in to what he
Speaker 1: believes the Constitution has to say and what the courts
Speaker 1: are upholding, and what they have to say on many
Speaker 1: issues ranging from lockdowns being locked in your hand in
Speaker 1: your homes, your business being shut down, vaccines, vaccine mandates,
Speaker 1: facts mean passports. We're gonna talk about guns. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about E s G. Narratives, UM, escape plans, how
Speaker 1: we survive, how we push back, UM, what happens if
Speaker 1: things become too bad and oppressive. He gives us even
Speaker 1: his actionable plan of how we can fight back and
Speaker 1: then how we could escape if we need to. So
Speaker 1: this is a great conversation, one that I've been trying
Speaker 1: to set up for a really long time. Robert Barnes
Speaker 1: is the best man to talk to you when it
Speaker 1: comes to what our laws, what our rights are for
Speaker 1: constitutional law, and so let's just go ahead and jump
Speaker 1: right into it. Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: The Market Disruptors Show, and today I am joined by
Speaker 1: Robert Barnes. He is a constitutional law attorney, trial attorney,
Speaker 1: tax attorney, constitutional attorney. Uh some big cases like the
Speaker 1: Covington kids, UM, helping Donald Trump's campaign and more stuff
Speaker 1: like that. Anyway, Robert, thanks for joining me today, Glad
Speaker 1: to be here. So man, I've listened to a lot
Speaker 1: of your work. Had recently had the pleasure of sharing
Speaker 1: a stage with you in in Miami, which was really cool. UM,
Speaker 1: but give us a little bit of the background on
Speaker 1: on the stuff that you're kind of working on and
Speaker 1: kind of focusing on right now. Sure, So you know,
Speaker 1: the the only thing that thematically ties all of my
Speaker 1: clients and cases and causes together is that two things. One,
Speaker 1: they're all underdog cases, so I represent people that are
Speaker 1: fighting someone that, even if they themselves are very well off,
Speaker 1: the other side has a lot more power and influence.
Speaker 1: The other is it ties together certain constitutional freedoms and
Speaker 1: liberties that I believe in that I want to support
Speaker 1: through the legal efforts that we make. Sometimes we do
Speaker 1: those cases pro bono. Sometimes we're doing them at some
Speaker 1: sort of contingency fee, and in a very few cases,
Speaker 1: you know, get actually get paid a little bit for
Speaker 1: the work or have some of the cost to freight.
Speaker 1: So that's sort of the unity of the work we're doing.
Speaker 1: And so I mean right now, that's been in the
Speaker 1: lockdown context, that's been in the election integrity context, that's
Speaker 1: been in the VA vaccine mandate context, that's been in
Speaker 1: all of the efforts sort of legally resisting wherever and
Speaker 1: whenever we can, either in the court of law or
Speaker 1: court of public opinion. This effort of massive global total
Speaker 1: control that is really afoot with the sort of global reset,
Speaker 1: whether that's wanting to control currency, whether that's wanting to
Speaker 1: control your body, whether that's controlling your freedom to simply
Speaker 1: walk out of your own door, in your own house,
Speaker 1: to go to your own local park. We face a unprecedented, unparalleled,
Speaker 1: modern challenged individual freedom, and the legal work that my
Speaker 1: firm does is to try to preserve and protect that
Speaker 1: freedom at every level that we can. And it's so important.
Speaker 1: That's why I want to talk to you today. I
Speaker 1: consider myself a freedom maximalist, and everything I'm trying to
Speaker 1: do is try to increase my freedom, but also help
Speaker 1: others increase their freedom, um typically through movements that we
Speaker 1: can make by ourselves and and and our money, UM not.
Speaker 1: On the law side, it almost seems to me like,
Speaker 1: as you said, I mean, it's gotten so big and
Speaker 1: we are such the underdog. It almost seems to me
Speaker 1: like I'm I've kind of given up hope on that,
Speaker 1: and now I have to figure out how to kind
Speaker 1: of protect myself and just kind of evade that. UM
Speaker 1: you like to represent the underdog, so I guess you
Speaker 1: don't share that. I mean, there is hope I guess
Speaker 1: you think otherwise you wouldn't keep fighting it. Absolutely so,
Speaker 1: I mean I see this as bifurcated. Always have a
Speaker 1: plan B, always have a backup plan. Well, it's it's
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's old statement and Art of the Deal when
Speaker 1: I was like twelve years old is one of my
Speaker 1: favorite books. Uh, and my favorite quote from his book
Speaker 1: was always hope for the best, including planning for that
Speaker 1: best to occur, and plan for the worst. Always do both.
Speaker 1: So have a plan A to fight back, to resist,
Speaker 1: to be able to push in either the court of
Speaker 1: public opinion, court of lore wherever you may be, to
Speaker 1: be able to try to create a freer society for
Speaker 1: the rest of us and ourselves. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: have an exit plan, know how to get out of
Speaker 1: the I mean, I always like the movie Heat where
Speaker 1: it said, you know the the has that Robert de
Speaker 1: Niro has that line, never have anything in your life
Speaker 1: that you can't walk out on in fifteen seconds flat
Speaker 1: if you feel the heat around the corner. Well, my
Speaker 1: view is, make sure you have yourself in a position
Speaker 1: where you can get to wherever you need to protect
Speaker 1: your freedom and liberty in fifteen seconds flat. If you
Speaker 1: feel something that whatever the heat is around the corner
Speaker 1: of this sort of totalitarian corporatism approach. And so I'm
Speaker 1: still optimistic and idealistic, but I always tell people always
Speaker 1: be realistic at the same time. Think of it like
Speaker 1: you're as you're noting your Jewish nine Berlin. And so
Speaker 1: should you quit trying to resist the Nazis? Absolutely not
Speaker 1: do whatever you can to resist the Nazis, but always
Speaker 1: but also have an exit plan so that if the
Speaker 1: Nazis actually sees power, you can get out of there
Speaker 1: and don't end up on a train to a concentration camp.
Speaker 1: Hey guys, let me just interrupt this interview real quick,
Speaker 1: just to plug the show sponsor, and that is Block five. Now.
Speaker 1: Block five is doing amazing things in the bitcoin finance space.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, they've cracked some really big
Speaker 1: news by bringing on the x c ftc UM chair
Speaker 1: gian Carlo Um, and they are one of the most transparent,
Speaker 1: most heavily regulated UM companies inside the United States, which
Speaker 1: gives me a lot of trust into what their services are. Now,
Speaker 1: I've recently did a video talking about how to retire
Speaker 1: off bitcoin, and you can do that by leveraging debt
Speaker 1: and interest against bitcoin and Block five is the number
Speaker 1: one company in the United States or maybe in the
Speaker 1: world to go to and use UM. They are leading
Speaker 1: the charges or paying interest on your bitcoin if you
Speaker 1: park it with them, or you can borrow against it. Now,
Speaker 1: as I broke down in that video, you can borrow
Speaker 1: against your bitcoin, and when you take debt against it,
Speaker 1: it's not taxable. It's not a taxable event. You can
Speaker 1: use that debt for anything that you want, including to
Speaker 1: live off of, to leverage up and buy more, or
Speaker 1: roll it into another asset. UM you can do something
Speaker 1: like I've done recently, like sell some real estate put
Speaker 1: that money into bitcoin. Now as that bitcoin price has risen,
Speaker 1: I'm able to borrow against it and go back and
Speaker 1: buy the same real estate or something similar, and I
Speaker 1: still own the bitcoin, and I also own the new
Speaker 1: asset as well. Lots of ways you can do this
Speaker 1: UM and block five is the company that I recommend.
Speaker 1: Down in the description, I have a link that you
Speaker 1: can click on. If you choose to use that link,
Speaker 1: you can earn up the two hund fifty dollars in
Speaker 1: bitcoin just for using that link. So check out block
Speaker 1: fine now yeah, I mean yeah, if they could have
Speaker 1: gone back in time, they would have set that plan
Speaker 1: up ahead. Um, and now we're kind of looking at
Speaker 1: the same things happening, which could potentially lead to the
Speaker 1: same outcome. So we should probably be taking those those
Speaker 1: same things. So that's something I want to dig into,
Speaker 1: so everybody listening, we will. But maybe before that, let's
Speaker 1: talk about the resisting part. And so I think I
Speaker 1: often say that the world we're going into is not
Speaker 1: the world we're coming out of. And so I think
Speaker 1: I think anybody would probably agree that the way the
Speaker 1: world's changed in the last twelve months or fourteen months
Speaker 1: is more than anybody could have imagined. And it seems
Speaker 1: that they're and I'm not a constitutional law attorney, I
Speaker 1: do kind of know the Constitution, but it just seems
Speaker 1: like infringements everywhere. But then, um, as I've talked to
Speaker 1: some of my more liberal liberal friends, they don't agree.
Speaker 1: They're like, well, it's not I don't think it is. Um,
Speaker 1: So it seems like it's almost something where like I
Speaker 1: think it's against my constitutional right. So then I'm going
Speaker 1: to not listen to that law. I'll work against that law.
Speaker 1: At some point they may come and get me the police, whatever,
Speaker 1: and then it goes to court and then at some
Speaker 1: point the court has to decide whether that is against
Speaker 1: the constitution. So I'm coming from California with Governor Newsome
Speaker 1: or or Czar Newsom, whatever you wanna call you to
Speaker 1: like four hundred executive actions in like six months or
Speaker 1: something like that seemed a wig unconstitutional. So is that
Speaker 1: how that works? I mean, am I looking at that right? Yeah? Fundamentally,
Speaker 1: And basically there's two different ways to legally resist. One
Speaker 1: is to force them to try to take action adverse
Speaker 1: to you and then be able to fight back in
Speaker 1: the courts that way. The other is to affirmatively take
Speaker 1: proactive action in certain instances where you sue out of
Speaker 1: the gate. So, like, you know, I represented a bunch
Speaker 1: of people during the lockdowns who sued, you know, in
Speaker 1: one case, sued because they couldn't they couldn't even go
Speaker 1: set up may maintain their second property that was a
Speaker 1: vacation property that they rented out in Michigan. They were
Speaker 1: prohibited from just traveling from their one home to their
Speaker 1: other home. In Georgia and Tennessee. Represented someone who wasn't
Speaker 1: allowed to go to a drive in Easter church service
Speaker 1: for their kid where there in a car. They weren't
Speaker 1: even gonna be inside a church. Uh, you know, represented
Speaker 1: people who were not being allowed to get on the
Speaker 1: ballot in Virginia related to lockdown issues. Uh. And then
Speaker 1: a bunch of the lockdown cases across the country, and
Speaker 1: many of those cases we were kind of proactive. We
Speaker 1: didn't wait for a fine to happen or anything else
Speaker 1: or punishment where they they wanted to take proactive remedies.
Speaker 1: And in all those cases they the government settled and folded,
Speaker 1: and so it showed an example of how you could
Speaker 1: be successful. But this is extraordinary when I hear some
Speaker 1: people on the left say this is you know, okay
Speaker 1: or normal. Nothing about this is normal. We just and
Speaker 1: most of the world just went under mass house arrest
Speaker 1: under terms and conditions of release that are worse than
Speaker 1: most terms of home arrest around the world for in
Speaker 1: a criminal system. Is so, I mean, you know, you
Speaker 1: couldn't take your your own children to your own local park,
Speaker 1: couldn't go to a school, couldn't go to your job,
Speaker 1: couldn't do basic I mean, it was house arrest. That's
Speaker 1: what it was. In some cases, three months, six months,
Speaker 1: nine months, some places it's still happening to some degree.
Speaker 1: So it's extraordinary invasion of public of rights. It was
Speaker 1: an extraordinary declaration of going back to the Nazi Germany example,
Speaker 1: what was the great legal loophole that allowed Hitler to
Speaker 1: seize power that the they thought there was that they
Speaker 1: put an emergency exception within their constitution. That's why ours didn't.
Speaker 1: And yet the courts started to carve it out, or
Speaker 1: the governors at least claimed it existed. So this is
Speaker 1: unparalleled threats to individual liberty what we've seen over the
Speaker 1: last year, and I fear it's only gonna get worse
Speaker 1: in terms of where the global reset agenda is going. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to jump into the globe because that's a
Speaker 1: big piece. But before we do so, Um, they used
Speaker 1: this emergency which they think gives them this power against
Speaker 1: the constitution, which to your point, there is no clause
Speaker 1: for that. But then I guess back to my point,
Speaker 1: they think they have it, they go ahead and use it,
Speaker 1: and then it's up to us to then challenge that,
Speaker 1: and somebody has to do that. Whether that be a
Speaker 1: private city, I guess it has to be a have
Speaker 1: a citizen hiring you right as an attorney. You can't
Speaker 1: just go do that on your own. Oh no, you
Speaker 1: can't do it on your own. In the way I
Speaker 1: look at it as a private resistance is the key,
Speaker 1: and you don't need a majority. You just need ten
Speaker 1: of the country to refuse to go along with something
Speaker 1: and the law becomes dead law. Look what happened in Italy.
Speaker 1: The businesses said, screw it, We're just gonna open up.
Speaker 1: And are you gonna arrest every business? Are you gonna
Speaker 1: arrest every customer? Now the chances are you're not, So
Speaker 1: mass resistance can really work. Civil resistance has been the
Speaker 1: most successful mechanism and method for reform in the Western
Speaker 1: world for the last century, going whether you're talking about
Speaker 1: Gandhi and INDI or MLK in the United States. So
Speaker 1: then you talk about the court of public opinion, and
Speaker 1: so then I think the public opinion is what influences
Speaker 1: that action. So if they can win, um, it seems
Speaker 1: like maybe what I saw being in California was um.
Speaker 1: The governor put out this order. It's not like a law,
Speaker 1: but he calls it like an order that you have
Speaker 1: to wear a mask, but there was no law about that.
Speaker 1: But then I think then the media picks it up
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden people think, oh, I
Speaker 1: guess I have to do it, and then I just
Speaker 1: go along with that um And is that kind of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about. They almost kind of used the
Speaker 1: media to kind of like change this opinion, and then
Speaker 1: that changes my behaviors and then eventually kind of becomes
Speaker 1: a law. I mean effectively that the legal system only
Speaker 1: matters to the degree there's public compliance, so that the law, like,
Speaker 1: you can have all the segregation laws you want on
Speaker 1: the books. If large parts of the population say I'm
Speaker 1: not going to obey that and expose you to the court,
Speaker 1: to the to the court of public opinion, then where
Speaker 1: the public thinks that law is a bad law, that
Speaker 1: law ultimately will fall off the books because it's unenforceable.
Speaker 1: A law doesn't mean anything unless it's enforceable, and for
Speaker 1: it to be enforceable, it needs public consent. That's sort
Speaker 1: of the greatest trick is the four pillars of power
Speaker 1: underneath have a fifth pillar power, which is the perception
Speaker 1: of the moral and legit and factual legitimacy of those
Speaker 1: other four powers pillars of power. So you remove that
Speaker 1: fifth pillar power, the rest of the system collapses. Our
Speaker 1: CIA actually goes around teaching other countries this and regime
Speaker 1: change effort. So it's always useful to remember it for
Speaker 1: our own nation at the same time, right how we
Speaker 1: can use it against them. So if we look at
Speaker 1: some of these big buckets of rights that have really
Speaker 1: been infringed on, you kind of locked mentioned some of them.
Speaker 1: Obviously the lockdowns, being locked in your house, healthy people
Speaker 1: being being locked down, um, and now, um, you know
Speaker 1: the vaccines. I guess those are kind of like two
Speaker 1: big things. Um. So if I was if I was
Speaker 1: a homeowner that felt I was unlockedown I didn't like that,
Speaker 1: which which I don't. Or I'm a business owner that
Speaker 1: feels that my business has been shut down and I
Speaker 1: have the right to run that. I mean, what what
Speaker 1: are how should I be thinking to that? What are
Speaker 1: my options that I have to kind of fight back
Speaker 1: against that? Well, the limitations that were supposed to be
Speaker 1: in in place constitutionally is that you know, lockdowns couldn't
Speaker 1: occur outside of very rare circumstances that has to go
Speaker 1: through legislative approval, that it has to meet certain judicial standards.
Speaker 1: Unfor most of these lockdowns did not fit that at all.
Speaker 1: And the unfortunately the courts were just reluctant to enforce
Speaker 1: the constitution during the first year, so now they're starting
Speaker 1: to enforce it. But in my view, if you're a
Speaker 1: business that this happened to, it was really an unconstitutional
Speaker 1: taking without payment, you know the I mean they were
Speaker 1: taking your property, your ability to practice, your occupation, your profession,
Speaker 1: or your business without compensating you fairly and justly for it.
Speaker 1: And the reason for the just compensation clause is to
Speaker 1: make the government pay for anything that they collectively imposed
Speaker 1: for the purported collective benefit you. The individuals shouldn't have
Speaker 1: to suffer that detriment alone or be the sole source
Speaker 1: of payment of it. So that was just one example
Speaker 1: on the business side of the equation. On the the
Speaker 1: health side of the equation, there's many potential objections. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is an emergency use authorized vaccine that doesn't fit
Speaker 1: within the emergency use statute to allow it to be
Speaker 1: compelled or coerced on anybody secondly informed consents part of
Speaker 1: the Nuremberg Code of nineteen seven. This clearly violates the
Speaker 1: Nuremberg Code that said no more human experimentation by any
Speaker 1: civilization or society. Those have been enforced here in the
Speaker 1: United States. I think it's a violation of your constitution
Speaker 1: or right the bodily integrity and privacy under the fourth
Speaker 1: and fifth Amendments of the U s Constitution. And I
Speaker 1: think in the employment context or the public accommodation context,
Speaker 1: it violates theether, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the
Speaker 1: Hippo laws. Yeah. So so all across the board. Some
Speaker 1: of that jumps into some international stuff which I do
Speaker 1: want to jump into. Um, but so UM. I guess
Speaker 1: then starting with just kind of lockdown. So if I
Speaker 1: was somebody who felt that my life was adversely affected,
Speaker 1: which everybody's was, but more importantly, my business suffered. Maybe
Speaker 1: I lost my business, which lots of people did. Um,
Speaker 1: then maybe I would have some sort of acclaim back
Speaker 1: if I wanted to sue UM the government for unjust lockdowns. Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly with the there's a bunch of lawsuits pending currently
Speaker 1: and basically I see it as a takings claim. So
Speaker 1: I think that it was a violation of the UH
Speaker 1: that they did not compensate you fairly or or effectively
Speaker 1: or equitably for their deprivation of your property and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be an open question how much they The courts
Speaker 1: have tried to limit the takings two very uh, very
Speaker 1: few set of circumstances. But just last week they made
Speaker 1: a major decision that expanded what constituted a taking under
Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment. In my view, given their definition of it, clearly,
Speaker 1: what happened in the lockdowns to people's property and business
Speaker 1: and occupations constitutes and unconstitutional taking if it wasn't fairly
Speaker 1: compensated for So should each individual person go out and
Speaker 1: hire an attorney and try to file a suit, or
Speaker 1: do you think there's some point where like maybe there's
Speaker 1: like class action lawsuits that are brought together. How does
Speaker 1: that kind of play out or or how do you
Speaker 1: think it could play out? Or should There's currently three
Speaker 1: major class actions pending, and I would look at if
Speaker 1: I was a business person in that category, I would
Speaker 1: look at joining. UH. I would look at either joining
Speaker 1: an existing class action if it already exists in your state,
Speaker 1: or uh working with other business owners to create a
Speaker 1: class action in your particular jurisdiction. Got it, So that's
Speaker 1: good for the lockdowns themselves. Um. It seemed like, um
Speaker 1: the courts were very slow to respond to some of
Speaker 1: the stuff, maybe because they were locked down to shut
Speaker 1: down themselves. But then I did see, you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of cities UH start to overturn these types of things,
Speaker 1: Like I was an Orange County, California, but I saw
Speaker 1: San Diego UH rule that it was not right to
Speaker 1: shut down restaurants for example. Um, so don it seemed
Speaker 1: like maybe too late, but eventually we started getting some
Speaker 1: of these overturned. As you've kind of mentioned, does that
Speaker 1: set some sort of precedence moving forward, because a lot
Speaker 1: of people think that, shoot, this was like a test
Speaker 1: to see how well we comply, and it's probably gonna
Speaker 1: come back again later, But maybe some of these overturnings
Speaker 1: have set some precedents that might make it harder. Hopefully. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I tell people from the get go to fight these
Speaker 1: cases all the way through, to fight them, particularly to
Speaker 1: time them right, to bring the right cases, right time,
Speaker 1: right place, because the most important aspect of this from
Speaker 1: a legal perspective was establishing the precedents that would preclude
Speaker 1: this from happening again. Um. And that's why it's essential
Speaker 1: and fundamental to continue to pursue these legal remedies, even
Speaker 1: if it's not a current imminent threat, because otherwise they
Speaker 1: will absolutely repeat this. This was a real live Milgram
Speaker 1: experiment where they achieved the level of success they have
Speaker 1: never had before. You know, the crime gets people to
Speaker 1: give up certain freedoms in the name of safety. Terrorism
Speaker 1: gets people to give up a certain amount of freedoms
Speaker 1: for safety. But it turns out, you know, scary, scary
Speaker 1: pandemic will get people to forfeit every freedom everywhere fast,
Speaker 1: in ways that nothing else has ever done before. So
Speaker 1: you can guarantee they're gonna keep They're gonna go back
Speaker 1: to this well, and the only question is when rather
Speaker 1: than if. Well, I I think it's already coming, and
Speaker 1: I want to ask you some questions about that in
Speaker 1: a minute. But so I would say it. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't like to use labels on political parties and
Speaker 1: stuff like that for more freedom and less government whatever
Speaker 1: that means. Um. But but I you know, I think
Speaker 1: the Constitution was a very amazing invention. The forefathers were
Speaker 1: extremely smart when they wrote that, and and it seems
Speaker 1: to me, in my opinion, that the Constitution limited the
Speaker 1: powers of the government. They didn't give us rights, it
Speaker 1: limited their powers. But I guess it's just a piece
Speaker 1: of paper, and unless somebody picks it up and does
Speaker 1: something with it, it's kind of worthless. Absolutely. It's the
Speaker 1: old Mexican saying, constitution made of paper, blade made of steel. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's just it. It's always been a reality. And
Speaker 1: that's where the public actions now that the limitation of
Speaker 1: state power is public willingness to along. I mean, the
Speaker 1: real trick of the whole system is getting the public
Speaker 1: to assert their rights. If mass if if if the
Speaker 1: masses do so, then the government, the governing elites have
Speaker 1: limited capacity. They need to buy hook or by crook
Speaker 1: get people's compliance. And if they don't get mass compliance,
Speaker 1: they can't realistically lock everybody up or it becomes counterproductive. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I and I agree, And I guess that's the
Speaker 1: message that I'm really trying to get across. And so
Speaker 1: we need people to um know the constitution. Uh. If
Speaker 1: they feel like they're getting infringed upon, then they need
Speaker 1: to pursue that on their own. And the way to
Speaker 1: do that would be um either one just resist and
Speaker 1: deal with the ramifications and then chase that up or
Speaker 1: potentially become offensive, find an attorney and then start attacking that.
Speaker 1: Absolutely and then the other thing is to be part
Speaker 1: of anything alternatively that you can, whether you're talking about
Speaker 1: an alternative self sufficient community, an alternative economic or legal
Speaker 1: or political jurisdiction where you have your assets, or individual
Speaker 1: freedom or citizenship, whether it's uh you know, uh, I
Speaker 1: supports up and called locals, which is a just an
Speaker 1: independent outside of the big tech monopoly that is established
Speaker 1: by Dave Rubin, whatever it is, find as many alternative,
Speaker 1: independent ways to contest and challenge institutional power wherever and
Speaker 1: whenever you can when it gets corrupted like this. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to get into some of that escape plan
Speaker 1: stuff in a little bit. But um, if we look
Speaker 1: at a couple of other big things. So one of
Speaker 1: the things you you kind of hinted on and I
Speaker 1: heard you talked about when we shared the stage, was
Speaker 1: about about the vaccines. And one thing you said that, um,
Speaker 1: it kind of seemed almost what I just talked about
Speaker 1: with the governor. We're almost they're bluffing you in a
Speaker 1: sense where it's like, hey, you have to have this
Speaker 1: um to come to work. Um. But then you kind
Speaker 1: of said that and and correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: But by showing up to work, you're kind of saying
Speaker 1: that you have it and they're not allowed to ask you. Um.
Speaker 1: But then I saw a news article I think two
Speaker 1: days ago in Houston. A hospital in Houston fired a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty people for refusing to take that. So
Speaker 1: how do people navigate that piece specifically or think through that?
Speaker 1: I guess so? Yeah, So, I mean, I don't believe
Speaker 1: the vaccine mandate is legal for the reasons articulated under
Speaker 1: the Nuremberg Code, under the Emergency Use Authorization Statute, under
Speaker 1: the constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity. How is
Speaker 1: it you can have a right to terminate a life
Speaker 1: in the case of abortion under the for bodily integrity
Speaker 1: and privacy, but not have a right to prevent the
Speaker 1: government from injecting an experimental drug into your body chemistry.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make sense to me fundamentally from a constitutional perspective.
Speaker 1: And then there's the ad A and hippo limitations the
Speaker 1: Houston case. The federal judge who ruled on that is
Speaker 1: one of the dumbest and craziest federal judges or judges
Speaker 1: in the world. He has one of the highest reversal
Speaker 1: rates in history. He issued a four page opinion that
Speaker 1: didn't make much sense, and so we'll see if the
Speaker 1: courts of appeals affirm that. But that's only one case
Speaker 1: in one place. There's also I'll be bringing challenges in
Speaker 1: New York, Pennsylvania, other jurisdictions. Bobby Kennedy's being bringing challenges
Speaker 1: in from everywhere from DC to California to Colorado. So
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a bunch of court cases. Might view
Speaker 1: is the laws on our side. The key is, as
Speaker 1: you noted early, a lot of the courts initially want
Speaker 1: to be for the system, and that's that's just the
Speaker 1: weakness in the courts, the political bias of their professional
Speaker 1: class background, and so you have to overcome that to
Speaker 1: make sure they actually enforced the Constitution rather than deferring
Speaker 1: to their friends in the political class. Um. But what
Speaker 1: I found is I did a sort of a template
Speaker 1: letter that a lot of people use to send to
Speaker 1: their employers. And I what I did is I said,
Speaker 1: whatever you do, it is up to you can't give
Speaker 1: you legal advice, but hey, you have at it. And
Speaker 1: a lot of people found success with those letters, not
Speaker 1: all of them, but many of them did. Because most
Speaker 1: employers don't understand their risk they don't understand. They could
Speaker 1: be sued for mandating it. They can be sued for
Speaker 1: disclosing that medical information to other people. They can be
Speaker 1: sued for trying to require a medical exam and violation
Speaker 1: of the A d A. They can be sued for
Speaker 1: invading people's privacy, and they can be sued if the
Speaker 1: vaccine ends up going a well like they're finding for
Speaker 1: certain age groups right now or you know that, then uh,
Speaker 1: the employer can be sued for all of the damages
Speaker 1: from that if they mandated. So you add that up.
Speaker 1: A lot of employers are stepping back from the brink
Speaker 1: and trying to trick people into doing it rather than
Speaker 1: actually legally compelled them to do so. But in the
Speaker 1: case of the Houston one, now they have UM and
Speaker 1: so then they've gotten away with it. The judge ruled
Speaker 1: in favor. However, if people UM were forced to take
Speaker 1: it and then had some complications from that, then they
Speaker 1: would have claims back against the hospital. So I've seen
Speaker 1: some of the big news seems, as you said, kind
Speaker 1: of age groups. So UM it's affecting hearts and men,
Speaker 1: but in women it seems to be affecting the ovaries.
Speaker 1: UM and so if you feel that maybe if you've
Speaker 1: been damaged, then you have claims back against the employer
Speaker 1: that forced you to take that. Absolutely, and you can
Speaker 1: imagine the kind of damages. I mean, heart damage can
Speaker 1: be damaged for life, cut off your life expectancy, kill
Speaker 1: you early, and your prevent you from and on the
Speaker 1: other side, for women being able to prevent you from
Speaker 1: having children. So I mean these are you know, as
Speaker 1: an employer, do you really want to be the one
Speaker 1: that's gonna gamble? And whether this emergency vaccine is not
Speaker 1: gonna end up like the nineteen seventy six one. We
Speaker 1: did this in nineteen seventy six, George floor Dot George
Speaker 1: Gerald Forward rushed through a rushed vaccine and what happened.
Speaker 1: The vaccine ended up being much more legally costly than
Speaker 1: the pandemic it was meant to address. Yeah. Now, um,
Speaker 1: I've seen states like Florida, for example, I think Texas
Speaker 1: now creating like executive orders that people can't enforce vaccine
Speaker 1: passports can't even ask about that. But then on the
Speaker 1: flip side over on California, back to good old Newsom,
Speaker 1: he's saying that that businesses can enforce like a vaccine passport. So, um,
Speaker 1: my current state or my my former state of California.
Speaker 1: I mean that made place I never want to go
Speaker 1: back to if that goes through. But like, how do
Speaker 1: you look at that? If you if I was in
Speaker 1: California and I see Newsom talking about having business is
Speaker 1: allowed to enforce that is, if a private business does that,
Speaker 1: then it's not a constitutional right, even though it goes
Speaker 1: against HIPPA. So in this particular, what governs employers for
Speaker 1: the most if it's not a state oriented mandates, not
Speaker 1: a government oriented mandate, not a government employer, then the
Speaker 1: constitutional restrict would not apply. There is still an argument
Speaker 1: that the Nuremberg Code of nineteen forty seven would apply.
Speaker 1: There's also still an argument that the Emergency Use Authorization Statute,
Speaker 1: which explicitly forbids any emergency use vaccine from being compelled
Speaker 1: by anybody anywhere, any place, would also apply. But that
Speaker 1: what is that has never been tested before one way
Speaker 1: or the other. But I think a DA would apply.
Speaker 1: Americans with Disabilities Act and secondarily hip hop the Americans
Speaker 1: with Disability Acts prevents them from asking certain questions about
Speaker 1: your medicals and health status regardless unless it's directly relevant
Speaker 1: and necessary for the occupational position. It also limits their
Speaker 1: ability to require a medical exam, which is often what
Speaker 1: effectively asking information about your vaccinated status is. It also
Speaker 1: prevents them from using your medical status as a basis
Speaker 1: to deny you employment. And so the I think a
Speaker 1: d A is the strongest way to go against employers.
Speaker 1: I have several current claims relating to mask mandates and
Speaker 1: public accommodations, so like restaurants, grocery stores, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: I mean Texas and Florida, path I think right now
Speaker 1: there's over twenty five states where laws banning vaccine passports
Speaker 1: are either pending or have passed. And so what it
Speaker 1: also shows you certain jurisdictions are going to be better
Speaker 1: than others. It's also gonna make it hard if you're
Speaker 1: a national employer. How do you say, Okay, my employee
Speaker 1: and Utah can't do this, but my employee in California
Speaker 1: has to. That kind of becomes a little crazy. And
Speaker 1: so I think the a d A is the best
Speaker 1: restriction in the biggest legal risk for employers in this context,
Speaker 1: and even retailers. So I want to go shop at
Speaker 1: this establishment and they say, we'll show me your vaccine
Speaker 1: and I'm like, you can't ask me that a d A.
Speaker 1: So even in that kind of relationship as well. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: because in the exuits I brought on the mask mandate cases,
Speaker 1: they try to demand that the person produce medical proof
Speaker 1: of why it is they couldn't wear a mask and
Speaker 1: we're exempted under the law. That's a that's an a
Speaker 1: DA violation because imagine if some if they decided, you
Speaker 1: know what, we don't want people with STD st D
Speaker 1: s uh shopping here at the local whole foods and
Speaker 1: then they demanded to know your sexual history before you
Speaker 1: walked in. There's a reason why these laws are on
Speaker 1: the books. Uh. And it's the same category of health
Speaker 1: and medical information that's completely protected from the from the
Speaker 1: employer under the ad A. People think of the ad
Speaker 1: A s I have to have a disability. That's not
Speaker 1: really what the laws about. The law is much broader
Speaker 1: than that. It's about your employer or public accommodations. Places
Speaker 1: like restaurants, grocery stores, et cetera. Can't hospitals, you name it,
Speaker 1: cannot use your medical status as a basis to either
Speaker 1: enquire about it unduly or to use it as a
Speaker 1: predicate to deny you services or employment. Yeah. Now, when
Speaker 1: I've um, when I've studied the Constitution and the history
Speaker 1: of of both leaving you know, the the um leaving
Speaker 1: coming to the United States, and the reasons why they
Speaker 1: set this up, it seems that the Constitution was set
Speaker 1: to be very rigid. Um, and they purposely seems like
Speaker 1: the forefathers purposely made it very rigid because they knew,
Speaker 1: based off the previous experience, that they would always try
Speaker 1: to expand their powers, and so it's set very rigid. However,
Speaker 1: we hear people today say, oh, it's a living, breathing
Speaker 1: document and it's meant to evolve over time. Um, I
Speaker 1: guess what's your opinion on that part. So two things
Speaker 1: with that. One clearly that there's a method by which
Speaker 1: to amend the Constitution, and that's the answer to the
Speaker 1: living document theory. So when people say, to the extent,
Speaker 1: what they mean is that certain understandings of privacy, say,
Speaker 1: have evolved over time. Okay, I agree with that to
Speaker 1: the extent. That's what they mean. That the Fourth Amendment
Speaker 1: has to keep up with the times, and that you know,
Speaker 1: smartphones didn't exist in seventeen seventy six. But clearly the
Speaker 1: right to privacy was meant to protect the interests that
Speaker 1: are involved in what you put on your phone. So
Speaker 1: in that context, I believe in living application, not interpretation,
Speaker 1: but application to the real world as it changes. But
Speaker 1: any amendment to the Constitution, which is what the living document,
Speaker 1: people really want to do, is they want to amend
Speaker 1: without going through the amendment process. And that's what I
Speaker 1: say is not constitutional. And there's a reason why the
Speaker 1: amendment process is difficult. It was meant to be difficult
Speaker 1: because we want to we have these rights that protect
Speaker 1: individual rights even against the mob. That mob has got
Speaker 1: to reach super mob status. It's got to be two
Speaker 1: thirds of the states and two thirds of the people
Speaker 1: in Congress before that document can be changed. And we're
Speaker 1: not doing that. You're saying they're going through making amendments
Speaker 1: without through the proper due course. Oh, absolutely they They've
Speaker 1: been substantively amending the Constitution. Honestly, even as soon as
Speaker 1: it went through. I mean, whenever judges didn't like it,
Speaker 1: a lot of them found an excuse to modify it
Speaker 1: and change in ways that don't exist. I mean, the
Speaker 1: idea that there was debate at the time about whether
Speaker 1: or not to have a national bank. They explicitly rejected
Speaker 1: including it within the constitution. And as you note, it's
Speaker 1: a if it's not explicitly given, then it's not there.
Speaker 1: And yet, you know, you know, a few years later
Speaker 1: some of the elite pro banker federal judges decided, now
Speaker 1: we're going to pretend that because it wasn't banned, that
Speaker 1: somehow it's okay. Uh So that there's always been efforts
Speaker 1: to sort of miss a lie and misinterpreted and that
Speaker 1: will continue unabated into the future unless and until we
Speaker 1: the public fight back and get conscientious constitutional jurors to
Speaker 1: the process. Hey, sorry to interrupt this video just one
Speaker 1: more time. I'm not running Google ads, so it's actually
Speaker 1: way less interruption than I normally would have on a video.
Speaker 1: UM and that's because it's sponsored by block five UM.
Speaker 1: They are opening up the world of bitcoin and financial products,
Speaker 1: offering to pay you interest on your bitcoin um better
Speaker 1: than own in a rental property that you have to
Speaker 1: manage and control and have the risks. You can just
Speaker 1: earn interest on it or you can leverage against it.
Speaker 1: Now I plan to hold my bitcoin forever and literally
Speaker 1: never sell my bitcoin. So how do you do that? Well,
Speaker 1: if I need money, I don't want to sell that bitcoin.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna pay tax on it, all right, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: end up with less and I don't have the bitcoin anymore.
Speaker 1: So a better way to do it is to borrow
Speaker 1: against the bitcoin. So I've put all my money into bitcoin.
Speaker 1: If I want to buy a car, or I want
Speaker 1: to buy a house, I can borrow against it at
Speaker 1: very very low competitive rates, get my house, get my car,
Speaker 1: whatever that may be, and get to keep the bitcoin.
Speaker 1: I've done a whole video on this. You can find it.
Speaker 1: I'll link it down to the description below, how to
Speaker 1: retire off a bitcoin without paying taxes, and you can
Speaker 1: do that with block fight services. A link to the
Speaker 1: video down below. I'm also going to put a link
Speaker 1: to block fight if you choose to click on that
Speaker 1: link to check them out. You can earn up to
Speaker 1: two dollars in free bitcoin just for using that link.
Speaker 1: And that's it. Let's go ahead and get back to
Speaker 1: the interview. So based off of that, then, is there
Speaker 1: a way to kind of push back on that piece specifically?
Speaker 1: I mean, how could we you said it's been happening
Speaker 1: since the beginning of time. So it almost sounds like
Speaker 1: there's no hope there. But is there an attack or
Speaker 1: some way to try to hold the line on that
Speaker 1: piece right there? Because we can easily see that the
Speaker 1: Constitution is under attack, is there some way to kind
Speaker 1: of hold that ridgety riget e there? Well, Really, my
Speaker 1: view is the public is the ultimate check because if
Speaker 1: the public refuses to go along with unconstitutional actions and
Speaker 1: a sufficient degree, then the state can't get away with it,
Speaker 1: no matter what politician or what jurist is in their pocket.
Speaker 1: So that's that's the number one. The number said. The
Speaker 1: second one is just continuing to be politically active and
Speaker 1: engaged in such a way that the most conscientious constitutionally
Speaker 1: conscientious judges get and seize power, and we still and
Speaker 1: we we still get some great constitutional rulings consistently. It's
Speaker 1: just a constant tension between that wing of the judiciary
Speaker 1: that wants to undermine the Constitution and redefine it for
Speaker 1: them to be socratic guardians of the rest of us,
Speaker 1: and those who still care deeply about it, and we
Speaker 1: still get a very important win. So the Constitution is
Speaker 1: still real, it's just always under threat. Now, let's move
Speaker 1: on to another constitutional topic, which is uh. I think
Speaker 1: it was two days ago. Good old Biden gets on
Speaker 1: there and threatens Americans with F fifteens and nukes, um,
Speaker 1: which is pretty amazing. Uh. There was a I think
Speaker 1: Senator Congressman was a booten dag or somebody no sue
Speaker 1: All a couple of years ago kind of did that
Speaker 1: on Twitter and it had this huge uproar um. And
Speaker 1: now the President seemed to be Dame, hey, you can't
Speaker 1: come on us with we have F fifteens and nukes
Speaker 1: and basically talking about, um, the Second Amendment taking away
Speaker 1: the right of guns. And it seems to me the
Speaker 1: Constitution is pretty clear right shall not be infringed. I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems kind of point blank and to the point, um,
Speaker 1: so what what what's going on with that? So the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment really was a means of enshrining ultimate individual freedom,
Speaker 1: power and liberty by constitutionally protecting the right of self defense.
Speaker 1: And that right of self defense was as to other
Speaker 1: people and as to the state itself, and that's what
Speaker 1: I and it was. It was meant to democratize the
Speaker 1: violent military power of the state by only allowing voluntary
Speaker 1: militias to have that power that are drawn from the
Speaker 1: citizenry themselves. And indeed there was opposition to a permanent
Speaker 1: standing army at the time of the American Revolution. So
Speaker 1: that was the goal democratize the states otherwise monopoly on
Speaker 1: violence and enshrine the right of self defense. That's why
Speaker 1: those two militia clauses in the right to bear arms
Speaker 1: are together in the same amendment. It's to achieve the
Speaker 1: same objective, to not allow the state to have a
Speaker 1: monopoly on both the tools of violent and the and
Speaker 1: the legal right of violence and the as to either
Speaker 1: other individuals or as to the state itself. And so
Speaker 1: but it's and for that reason, it's the most powerful
Speaker 1: amendment in the entire Constitution. So the I mean, the
Speaker 1: first Amendment has a lot of great rights, Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment, sixth Amendment, eighth Amendment, but the second second
Speaker 1: Amendment is the one that safeguards all the rest of them.
Speaker 1: They are the ones that are ultimately checked. Now, Biden,
Speaker 1: is you know, factually correct that the ability to overthrow
Speaker 1: the United States government through by violent means is almost
Speaker 1: non existent, which means his excuse for trying to restrict
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights also is non existent. Uh. And also
Speaker 1: it's pepuliar that the same this is the same vice,
Speaker 1: the same president that's out there telling people a bunch
Speaker 1: of unarmed grannies taken selfies in the capital was the
Speaker 1: greatest insurrection since the Civil War, and at the same
Speaker 1: time saying you don't have to worry about an insurrection
Speaker 1: because that's not practical given all the nuclear and armament
Speaker 1: powers that we monopolize. Yeah, so it's just a pretext
Speaker 1: to try to take away people's Second Amendment rights because
Speaker 1: it's the greatest protection against state incursion of their liberties. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And it seems to me, I mean almost Uh well,
Speaker 1: first of all, uh, you it can't work except for oh,
Speaker 1: it kind of worked in Vietnam. Oh, it kind of
Speaker 1: works through the Middle East. As you said, the people, right,
Speaker 1: it's always about the people, and so if enough people
Speaker 1: stand up, they're always going to have the power. But
Speaker 1: it almost seems to me like, uh, I mean, may
Speaker 1: I mean they want to take away the guns because
Speaker 1: then they have unlimited power on what they can do.
Speaker 1: Almost like there's some things they may want to start pushing,
Speaker 1: like maybe why we haven't gone as deep and as
Speaker 1: Australia locking citizens in or Canada or uk is because
Speaker 1: of that Second Amendment right and if they can remove
Speaker 1: that then they could go even further than those other countries.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's something there is that just fearful talk. No, No,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely true. I mean it's a two levels. One.
Speaker 1: They want to strip you of your ability to defend
Speaker 1: yourself against other individuals, so that you're completely dependent on
Speaker 1: the ST eight for your safety and security and property
Speaker 1: and liberty. That's half the equation. The other half of
Speaker 1: the equations they don't want you to be in effective
Speaker 1: means of resistance because whether you're talking about the Taliban
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan, or the Vietcong and Vietnam, or any other
Speaker 1: place so you could point to that's had internal conflict
Speaker 1: and insurrection over the past half century, the ability to
Speaker 1: have nuclear weapons and the ability to have superior armaments,
Speaker 1: the ability to have big armies doesn't work if you
Speaker 1: have a high enough level of indigenous resistance, no matter
Speaker 1: even if to all what they have are thirty year
Speaker 1: old weapons. So the so that's they and they know
Speaker 1: that that's why they want to completely They not only
Speaker 1: want to disarm people to functionally have the capacity to
Speaker 1: more easily have total control. It's a mind game where
Speaker 1: they want people both terrify but totally intimidated and totally
Speaker 1: dependent on the government, uh, in order for for their
Speaker 1: personal freedom, so that they do whatever the government asked
Speaker 1: them to do. Yeah, yeah, I mean. And we can
Speaker 1: look at the United States government has been involved in
Speaker 1: many government overthrowing and typically what they do is they
Speaker 1: send in some weapons to arm the arm the resistance,
Speaker 1: and uh, maybe a couple of cases of a K
Speaker 1: forty sevens or whatever and maybe some missiles and and
Speaker 1: that's enough. They don't send that fifteens and nukes to
Speaker 1: those people. And so I guess over and over we
Speaker 1: can see how that's done. I hadn't really thought about, um,
Speaker 1: the part about taking anywhere our right a right to
Speaker 1: defend ourselves against someone else, um, because of the dependence issue.
Speaker 1: But that's a great point that you brought up. And uh,
Speaker 1: if you look at like the eight stages of the
Speaker 1: death of the democracy, it goes to dependence and then
Speaker 1: to um basically complete control. And uh, I was looking
Speaker 1: at it more like U b I right, as a
Speaker 1: way to seek dependence, and so they're giving us all
Speaker 1: these things to increase dependence. Of course BLM and stuff.
Speaker 1: They're trying to tear down the nuclear family. They don't
Speaker 1: want people dependent on a family, no support system. UM.
Speaker 1: It seemed to me that maybe they were trying to
Speaker 1: change the argument to self defense because that was that
Speaker 1: was an argument they could win. They could say, you
Speaker 1: don't need to self defend, We're here to defend you, UM.
Speaker 1: And maybe they could defeat that argument. But the argument
Speaker 1: like no, we have to defend ourselves against the state
Speaker 1: um is a much harder argument for them to win. Yes,
Speaker 1: And I think it's their concept of dependence. They do
Speaker 1: everything possible to induce dependence. So we have a criminal
Speaker 1: justice process that we know creates a permanent criminal class,
Speaker 1: particularly as to how we treat juveniles. Yet we keep
Speaker 1: doing it. Why because a permanent criminal class makes people
Speaker 1: feel comfortable about the police walking around their neighborhoods um
Speaker 1: constant continuous police presence. We create foreign enemies and and
Speaker 1: and foreign terrorism to certain degrees. We either let it occur.
Speaker 1: We either encourage it to incur, incite it to occur,
Speaker 1: help it occur. In large part because you know, no
Speaker 1: foreign enemy, no war, no no war, no deep state,
Speaker 1: so that you know, So there's they are always constantly
Speaker 1: thinking how do we induce mass dependence and limit mass resistance?
Speaker 1: And at every single thing they're doing, whether it's in
Speaker 1: the health space, the crime space, the war space, the
Speaker 1: gun space, the currency space, all of it's about they
Speaker 1: want you, I mean to the digital currency, a government
Speaker 1: controlled digital currency is all about they want to be
Speaker 1: able to control you depend on them for whether or
Speaker 1: not you can turn your lights on, order food, get
Speaker 1: a cab, all the rest. That's their ultimate for total control.
Speaker 1: They need total dependence. Yeah, let's let's transition into that then,
Speaker 1: because that's kind of my area. I kind of focus
Speaker 1: on more on the finance side, and of course I
Speaker 1: talk about bitcoin all the time. And then kind of
Speaker 1: what you're talking about is like central bank digital currencies.
Speaker 1: Essentially bank digital currencies will be the ultimate tool for control,
Speaker 1: behavioral modification, total surveillance, all those things. And of course
Speaker 1: they want that, why wouldn't they. Um, But then we
Speaker 1: have bitcoin, which is the opposite, which of course they
Speaker 1: wouldn't want. UM. Constitutionally speaking, UM, is there anything that
Speaker 1: protects our right to use whatever we want as a
Speaker 1: form of money or barter or exchange. Um So, for example, UM,
Speaker 1: hey Robert, that's a great painting or picture you have
Speaker 1: in the back. Um, let me build you a web
Speaker 1: site for that, and that would be my labor. I
Speaker 1: and there's no law against me giving me my labor.
Speaker 1: Or hey I have this, uh this custom signed water bottle?
Speaker 1: Would you trade me? Right? So it's like almost like
Speaker 1: I could use whatever I want as money. And if
Speaker 1: I wanted to use bitcoin as money or fine art
Speaker 1: as money. Um so, is there anything constitutionally that protects
Speaker 1: that there should be. The problem is the courts have
Speaker 1: been very reluctant in that space to defend people's rights,
Speaker 1: whether it's the seizure of gold in nineteen thirty four.
Speaker 1: I mean, my family ancestry goes the way back to
Speaker 1: Rhode Island. We were trying to still print our own
Speaker 1: currency and opposing the constitution because it didn't have a
Speaker 1: bill of right to attach to it yet. And then
Speaker 1: they sit in the army so that that's how that resolved.
Speaker 1: So in my view, there's limitations on the state's ability
Speaker 1: to control, uh, the issuance of currency, what tender people
Speaker 1: choose to use as barters of exchange and so I
Speaker 1: don't think the constitution entitles the government to monopolize that,
Speaker 1: but courts have been an uphill battle and fighting it
Speaker 1: in the US. So I think you're legally constitutionally entitled
Speaker 1: to it, but it would be an uphill battle with
Speaker 1: their current court system. I mean, I know there's been
Speaker 1: cases of people trying to create your own currencies that
Speaker 1: the government's come down really really hard on. So I
Speaker 1: understand that trying to create a currency. But again, hey Robert,
Speaker 1: let me trade you these for that, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: how how can they control that? Um? And I guess
Speaker 1: that's what I'm asking, like, Uh, is there anything that
Speaker 1: protects just the free exchange of goods, free bartnership, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But my view is it does in in that the
Speaker 1: they don't have that power in the first place to
Speaker 1: even regulate that behavior. That's why the mandate in the
Speaker 1: Obamacare was always unconstitutional. It's just not a federal power
Speaker 1: in the first place. UM, for which we have evidence
Speaker 1: of people using different barners of exchange throughout American history. Uh.
Speaker 1: The But the flip side of that is they often
Speaker 1: try to expand the definition of things, uh to include
Speaker 1: to redefine it as tender to redefine it as currency
Speaker 1: in such a way that they can get the courts
Speaker 1: to limit it, even though the Constitution doesn't really authorize
Speaker 1: that either. Got it now, Um, specifically regarding bitcoin, which
Speaker 1: is cryptograph, you know, cryptography cryptographically secured, and I know
Speaker 1: that specifically went up to the Supreme Court at one
Speaker 1: point back in the nineties. They said, you know, it
Speaker 1: was munitions and you couldn't export it. They printed it out,
Speaker 1: they put it on the counter. It was ones and zeros.
Speaker 1: They said, this is speech, um, and so code is speech,
Speaker 1: and it was upheld there. Um. Of course, under under
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, Bill Barr he was talking specifically about
Speaker 1: coming coming for it, and so at some point there's
Speaker 1: probably gonna be a battle for that again. Um, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court already ruling that it was protected under free
Speaker 1: speech because it's code. Um, where do you think the
Speaker 1: constitution lies or where do you think that battle may
Speaker 1: come if at all? Well, yeah, my view is constitutionally,
Speaker 1: this is not something the federal government has any entitlement
Speaker 1: to try to control or constrict. Part one. I mean,
Speaker 1: these efforts to treat try to claim ripples really a
Speaker 1: a security on the exchange these alternative currencies, etcetera. But
Speaker 1: that gives you an idea where the government's gonna go.
Speaker 1: They're gonna try to redefine what's happening to fit within
Speaker 1: a space ace that the court system has previously allowed
Speaker 1: them to govern, or control or constrict, even though there's
Speaker 1: no plain language in the constitution that permits it. And
Speaker 1: as you know, there's been por there's been prior interpretation
Speaker 1: that this is either property, that that this is uh
Speaker 1: just basically speech because of the nature of code, though
Speaker 1: they have an evolving interpretation of what code is and isn't,
Speaker 1: so you know, sometimes it's something that can be trademarks,
Speaker 1: sometimes something that can't be. And it's because I mean,
Speaker 1: we're governed by boomers on the judicial side, so you know,
Speaker 1: these are not the most inspiring tech aware populations in
Speaker 1: the world. Um, and so that will be sort of
Speaker 1: the counter it's really dealing with the politics of the
Speaker 1: court and to where the court of public opinion really matters.
Speaker 1: Though I also think the genius of bitcoin in particular
Speaker 1: was it was created in such a way that in
Speaker 1: order for governments to truly suppress it, they have to
Speaker 1: disable the Internet itself and that's just not a practicable,
Speaker 1: achievable thing for them to do. So they can make
Speaker 1: life difficult for a bitcoin owner, but they really can't
Speaker 1: effectively ban it without literally cutting off their nose despite
Speaker 1: their face. Yeah, and now we've seen bitcoin transactions happen
Speaker 1: on ham radios, We've seen them happen on mesh networks,
Speaker 1: and so even shutting off the Internet wouldn't probably be effective.
Speaker 1: They'd have to shut down the entire Internet to the
Speaker 1: entire world at the exact same time, which is theoretically impossible.
Speaker 1: Um so um, it seems like if they wanted to
Speaker 1: do it, a couple years ago would have been the time,
Speaker 1: and at this point the ship is kind of sailed
Speaker 1: in that regard. Um. The other thing that's interesting is that,
Speaker 1: you know, when the government tells you, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: starts a war on drugs, it doesn't make me want
Speaker 1: to go do drugs. But when they say we're going
Speaker 1: to crack down on guns, gun sales go through the roof.
Speaker 1: And if they say you don't have the right to
Speaker 1: hold your wealth in a way, we can't seize it
Speaker 1: and steal it from you, that makes me want to
Speaker 1: go do that even more so. Back to the kind
Speaker 1: of cutting off your nose. It's almost like any crackdown
Speaker 1: they try and do now only encourage people to use
Speaker 1: it even more. It seems like, oh absolutely, And I
Speaker 1: think once they start coming online with digital currencies, people
Speaker 1: are gonna really appreciate the value of bitcoin because, I mean,
Speaker 1: what happens when the government can just on one some
Speaker 1: govern rogue official. I mean, like people get swatted by
Speaker 1: you know, people coming into their homes. That happened in
Speaker 1: New York where a neighbor, you know, claim something about
Speaker 1: somebody that wasn't true related January six, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden their house is getting busted down by swat um.
Speaker 1: Imagine if the random politicians had that power, random I
Speaker 1: R S officials had that power. I mean, Biden is
Speaker 1: talking about having the biggest expansion of the I r
Speaker 1: S in American history. Add that to digital currency, where
Speaker 1: with one you know, button, they could all of a
Speaker 1: sudden cut off your ability to feed yourself. Uh that
Speaker 1: You're gonna really realize the value of bitcoin is an
Speaker 1: alternative under those circumstances. Yeah, for sure, I've talked about that.
Speaker 1: I think that CBDCs will actually be kind of the
Speaker 1: gateway into bitcoin. It kind of helps people realize that
Speaker 1: digital money is real and you kind of get used
Speaker 1: to it, and then you're like, well, why is this
Speaker 1: one going up in purchasing power and this one's going
Speaker 1: down and purchasing power. Why do they steal this one
Speaker 1: and not this one? And I think it's a I
Speaker 1: think it's a it's a gateway drug. Back to the
Speaker 1: expansion of the I r S. Yeah, I mean they're
Speaker 1: specifically trying to come after that some of that cryptocurrency stuff, um,
Speaker 1: which maybe in such a big surprise because when Biden
Speaker 1: was vice president under probably the exact same administration that's
Speaker 1: still in power today, they weaponize the I r S
Speaker 1: against people back then as well. Oh yes, um, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the biggest, most dramatic expansion in history. And
Speaker 1: to given example, they keep claiming they're gonna shrink the
Speaker 1: tax gap, even they even claim a hundred billion for
Speaker 1: the new infrastructure bill is going to come from these
Speaker 1: new I r S employees being hired, and they're talking
Speaker 1: about basically doubling tripling the number of I r S
Speaker 1: people To get people an idea out there, the the
Speaker 1: amount of the so called tax gap is almost always
Speaker 1: less than the amount of the illegal source income in
Speaker 1: the economy. So that gives you an idea that the
Speaker 1: tax gap for all the people that underpay their taxes,
Speaker 1: there's more people that overpay their taxes every year. You
Speaker 1: don't have to watch the H and R Block commercial
Speaker 1: to figure that out. The government knows that. So what
Speaker 1: the government's really talking about is terrifying people into overpaying
Speaker 1: their tax to being afraid to exercise exemptions and deductions,
Speaker 1: to find creative means to seize it and steal it.
Speaker 1: The I R S is the most terroristic entity in
Speaker 1: the world, frankly from a governmental perspective. Now you can want,
Speaker 1: you know, read a book like Confessions of a Tax
Speaker 1: Collector and it sounds like Lord Conrad in the early
Speaker 1: nineteen hundreds going into the Heart of the jungle. It's
Speaker 1: like a real live apocalypse now just in a domestic context. Uh.
Speaker 1: So that that is the next great threat. The States
Speaker 1: are going to use the global tax system to create
Speaker 1: a global digital currency to and use their tax collecting
Speaker 1: enforcement mechanisms to try to terrorize and terrify people into
Speaker 1: forfeiting their freedoms. Okay, sounds scary, um let's bump it
Speaker 1: up to a higher level. Now, so you've you've mentioned
Speaker 1: a couple of times the norm their code, which is
Speaker 1: under the u N. After World War Two, I believe, right,
Speaker 1: so it kind of set this the whole world under
Speaker 1: the u N. I mean, maybe give us a background
Speaker 1: what that Nuremberg Code is. Sure, so it happens after
Speaker 1: the Nuremberg Trials, where all these horrors of medical experimentation,
Speaker 1: medical experimentation that start in the United States in the
Speaker 1: nineteen ten the eugenics movement was based here. The four
Speaker 1: Sterilizations was one of the moral horrendous decisions by the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court during that time frame. Almost all these vaccine
Speaker 1: vaccination cases people site, they're from that same time where
Speaker 1: they said force sterilizations are okay and detention camps are okay.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of legal constitutional reasons to believe
Speaker 1: that is no longer good law. But at it came
Speaker 1: out of that as we said never again. And so
Speaker 1: the Nuremberg Code was adopted by all the people there
Speaker 1: present for the Nuremberg Trials, and it said here's all
Speaker 1: the things we're never going to allow any state or
Speaker 1: society to do in the future. Contry country, no country,
Speaker 1: no state, no society, no governing because a lot of
Speaker 1: the people forget, a lot of the Nazi experimentation, or
Speaker 1: a fair amount of it did not even take place
Speaker 1: within governmental capacity, was being done by private doctors, and
Speaker 1: they said that too was wrong. Uh so it was
Speaker 1: that we're not gonna it was basically the right of
Speaker 1: informed consent, so that before any medical before any medical
Speaker 1: invasive procedure ever takes place on you ever again. And
Speaker 1: that is what the vaccine mandate are violating. And in
Speaker 1: the US courts have said it is enforceable as federal
Speaker 1: law as if it was written in the Constitution or
Speaker 1: written in the Federal Statute. M HM. So I wanted
Speaker 1: to take up to that level because this is more
Speaker 1: of a global thing. And so we're seeing just as
Speaker 1: the power continues to centralize in the United States, States
Speaker 1: rights are being overrun, especially today with the Democrats trying
Speaker 1: to consolidate power. In turn it more federal, but it's
Speaker 1: also seeming to be consolidating globally as well. So the
Speaker 1: World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the u N,
Speaker 1: the I m F, etcetera, and so um one one
Speaker 1: big thing. Um. I just did a video on this
Speaker 1: and it was about Mark Karney, our good old buddy
Speaker 1: from the Bank of England, Bank of Canada, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: advisor to the WF the U N U N on
Speaker 1: finance and climate change. Of course, he came out with
Speaker 1: this book and he said that, UM, basically, people have
Speaker 1: to be prepared to have life be much worse. Um.
Speaker 1: And that people have to be prepared to give up
Speaker 1: all their personal freedoms in order to save the world. UM.
Speaker 1: That includes the right to travel, the right to eat meat,
Speaker 1: to and on and on and on under this E
Speaker 1: s G narrative. Right and uh, that seems to be
Speaker 1: a massive infringement obviously on Americans with a constitution, but
Speaker 1: even globally under some of these U N standards as well.
Speaker 1: And that seems to me to be the ultimate. As
Speaker 1: you said, they used these scare tactics. So terrorism was
Speaker 1: really scary, the pandemic was even more scary. But climate
Speaker 1: change seems to be the ultimate. Um. But now that
Speaker 1: seems to be like a global movement. So now how
Speaker 1: do we look at that. There's no question that climate
Speaker 1: change is sort of a political pretext for a massive
Speaker 1: power shift. It's not really about the environment, and you
Speaker 1: need to follow people like Born Lumberg who talks about
Speaker 1: how all of this is apocalyptic nonsense. Or you can
Speaker 1: just look at the or Michael Moore Planet of the
Speaker 1: Humans and all these green energies right, and this is
Speaker 1: from a lefty are all fraud. They're actually worse. I mean,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk wants to yip about bitcoin's energy. You might
Speaker 1: want to look at how exactly Tesla's batteries are created,
Speaker 1: you know. So it's this is just fraud on top
Speaker 1: of fraud. It's a power shift, it's a power crap
Speaker 1: and what is it? It's meant to be. It's the
Speaker 1: ultimate scary thing. That's why they teach six year olds,
Speaker 1: you know, the world is going to end unless we
Speaker 1: have all these crazy changes in power in society. And
Speaker 1: uh and then they've they've been looking for an excuse
Speaker 1: to reshape the global world in the way they want
Speaker 1: it to be, so that they have total control over it.
Speaker 1: And they're always looking for this, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: the digital currencies in India originally pitched as we just
Speaker 1: want to help people get access to the banking system.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, right, the I mean, so it's it's Uh,
Speaker 1: there's talk about putting a chip in people quantum tattoo
Speaker 1: to monitor your vaccine status. Uh. The and then the
Speaker 1: same Bill Gates also has a chip that could be
Speaker 1: tied to a digital central bank currency of course. Uh
Speaker 1: So the goal is just total control, total control. The
Speaker 1: Chinese social credit system put on top of it, and
Speaker 1: every mechanism and method of resistance known demand has to
Speaker 1: be employed because the elites are just going to accelerate
Speaker 1: this agenda after their success with the pandemic lockdowns. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we gotta we gotta start wrapping up here. I
Speaker 1: know we're going along. So maybe just give us, uh,
Speaker 1: if you have any if there's any hope you you said,
Speaker 1: like the movie Heat be prepared, Um, imagine we're in Germany, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Is there a couple of things that you could tell people,
Speaker 1: some things that they can kind of think about or
Speaker 1: maybe actions that maybe they could kind of help their
Speaker 1: future out with. Oh? Absolutely, so. I mean there's getting
Speaker 1: involved in the court of public opinion where and where
Speaker 1: you know, maybe in some cases you'd be anonymous, in
Speaker 1: some cases, be publicly involved in some cases support it,
Speaker 1: whether that's joining things like locals, whether that's being part
Speaker 1: of what you're doing with George Gammon is doing what
Speaker 1: other people are doing in that space, sharing the information,
Speaker 1: educating themselves. Self empowerment starts with self education. That's the
Speaker 1: very first step. George is doing great work on the
Speaker 1: FED suit that I'm helping him with. UH. The goal
Speaker 1: is to audit the you know four of the FED
Speaker 1: in order to audit the FED in order to end
Speaker 1: the FED in one step after the next. So there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of Court of public opinion actions, a bunch
Speaker 1: of legal actions that people can support at different levels
Speaker 1: that are important. And then for your personal lives, be prepared.
Speaker 1: And there's lots of ways to be prepared, and you
Speaker 1: don't have to have the most economic means to do so.
Speaker 1: You can do so in a small scale, mid scale,
Speaker 1: or a high scale, and that depends on your individual
Speaker 1: economic situation and whether that's simple basic things like having
Speaker 1: survival mechanisms in place in advance, like smart people did
Speaker 1: in Texas so that when they had the power outages,
Speaker 1: they weren't affected because they had generators, they had backups,
Speaker 1: they had maybe an RV, they could go someplace to
Speaker 1: be safe and secure and and have what they need Uh,
Speaker 1: there's there's that's what I would call the RV level
Speaker 1: of independence. But then there's the more sophisticated level of independence.
Speaker 1: I mean, just living in a state that's also more
Speaker 1: free and more should have educated people. You can stay
Speaker 1: within the United States, but it's a big difference whether
Speaker 1: you're living in Florida or California over the last year. Uh,
Speaker 1: and there's just win illustration. And then on top of that,
Speaker 1: whether it's things like you've talked about with the Puerto
Speaker 1: Rican tax provisions that can give you some more economic freedom,
Speaker 1: or the highest level, which is, you know, have a
Speaker 1: second citizenship in place, have what I call jurisdictional diversification,
Speaker 1: have a little born identity briefcase, so you can get
Speaker 1: anywhere you need to wherever you need to. Independent technology,
Speaker 1: independent currency, independent citizenship, so you have maximum freedom and
Speaker 1: liberty moving forward. Everybody can do what they can do
Speaker 1: to give themselves and the world around them more freedom
Speaker 1: just by taking action. Yeah. Wow, that's good. That's really good.
Speaker 1: So you're trying of you're kind of given everybody, uh,
Speaker 1: all the way across the spectrum um stuff. And I
Speaker 1: think it just starts at the most basic what you
Speaker 1: said is just don't comply. And if if I look
Speaker 1: at like what caused um, every of every one of
Speaker 1: these impressive regimes to collapse, like the Berlin Wall coming down,
Speaker 1: the people stopped complying at some point, and so kind
Speaker 1: of hold the line. Hold the line here right exactly,
Speaker 1: never forgive uh never forget. Hold the line. It's it's
Speaker 1: a good mantra for a wide range of activities in life. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, okay, cool, So we'll wrap it up with that. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna obviously I know you're pretty active on Twitter,
Speaker 1: so we'll make sure we're linked to your Twitter. Um
Speaker 1: what else should we draw attention to that you want
Speaker 1: to shout out real quick? Oh sure, if people want
Speaker 1: to find me or find the centralized source or the
Speaker 1: independent the exit ramp to big tech monopoly US, it's
Speaker 1: at Viva barnes Law dot locals dot com. And created
Speaker 1: that site to sort of start getting people to it,
Speaker 1: to get away from the big tech monopolis, to have
Speaker 1: an exit ramp that's available, to build a template for
Speaker 1: independent content creators to create and curate uh independent communities
Speaker 1: that can effectively help change the world one step at
Speaker 1: a time. To create the equivalent of the Boston revolutionary
Speaker 1: taverns that helped birth the American Revolution in the first place.
Speaker 1: So that's Viva barnes Law dot locals dot com. That's
Speaker 1: awesome and we're gonna make sure to link down that below.
Speaker 1: I love that because it's like, instead of just complaining
Speaker 1: about what's going on with tech today, go create your own.
Speaker 1: And that's what you guys are doing, So make sure
Speaker 1: we'll link down to that below. With that, we'll ahead
Speaker 1: and sign it off. Robert, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining absolutely glad of here. Thanks