Constitutional Rights Are Under Attack And What To Do | Robert Barnes

have changed as much as we've had. Um. The world is changing, the laws are changing, and a lot of people, and myself included, believe that it's infringing upon our constitutional rights. We believe that the Constitution was written a way to protect the rights of the people, to limit the powers that the government has been given. Now that's open for the courts to decide. I have my opinion, other people have their's. But today I am joined with Robert Barnes.

He is a constitutional law attorney. He deals with this on a regular basis. He has has many constitution sational cases, and we are going to dig in to what he believes the Constitution has to say and what the courts are upholding, and what they have to say on many issues ranging from lockdowns being locked in your hand in your homes, your business being shut down, vaccines, vaccine mandates,

facts mean passports. We're gonna talk about guns. We're gonna talk about E s G. Narratives, UM, escape plans, how we survive, how we push back, UM, what happens if things become too bad and oppressive. He gives us even his actionable plan of how we can fight back and then how we could escape if we need to. So this is a great conversation, one that I've been trying

to set up for a really long time. Robert Barnes is the best man to talk to you when it comes to what our laws, what our rights are for constitutional law, and so let's just go ahead and jump right into it. Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of The Market Disruptors Show, and today I am joined by Robert Barnes. He is a constitutional law attorney, trial attorney,

tax attorney, constitutional attorney. Uh some big cases like the Covington kids, UM, helping Donald Trump's campaign and more stuff like that. Anyway, Robert, thanks for joining me today, Glad to be here. So man, I've listened to a lot of your work. Had recently had the pleasure of sharing a stage with you in in Miami, which was really cool. UM, but give us a little bit of the background on on the stuff that you're kind of working on and

kind of focusing on right now. Sure, So you know, the the only thing that thematically ties all of my clients and cases and causes together is that two things. One, they're all underdog cases, so I represent people that are fighting someone that, even if they themselves are very well off, the other side has a lot more power and influence. The other is it ties together certain constitutional freedoms and liberties that I believe in that I want to support

through the legal efforts that we make. Sometimes we do those cases pro bono. Sometimes we're doing them at some sort of contingency fee, and in a very few cases, you know, get actually get paid a little bit for the work or have some of the cost to freight. So that's sort of the unity of the work we're doing.

And so I mean right now, that's been in the lockdown context, that's been in the election integrity context, that's been in the VA vaccine mandate context, that's been in all of the efforts sort of legally resisting wherever and whenever we can, either in the court of law or

court of public opinion. This effort of massive global total control that is really afoot with the sort of global reset, whether that's wanting to control currency, whether that's wanting to control your body, whether that's controlling your freedom to simply walk out of your own door, in your own house, to go to your own local park. We face a unprecedented, unparalleled, modern challenged individual freedom, and the legal work that my firm does is to try to preserve and protect that

freedom at every level that we can. And it's so important. That's why I want to talk to you today. I consider myself a freedom maximalist, and everything I'm trying to do is try to increase my freedom, but also help others increase their freedom, um typically through movements that we can make by ourselves and and and our money, UM not. On the law side, it almost seems to me like, as you said, I mean, it's gotten so big and

we are such the underdog. It almost seems to me like I'm I've kind of given up hope on that, and now I have to figure out how to kind of protect myself and just kind of evade that. UM you like to represent the underdog, so I guess you don't share that. I mean, there is hope I guess you think otherwise you wouldn't keep fighting it. Absolutely so, I mean I see this as bifurcated. Always have a

plan B, always have a backup plan. Well, it's it's Donald Trump's old statement and Art of the Deal when I was like twelve years old is one of my favorite books. Uh, and my favorite quote from his book was always hope for the best, including planning for that best to occur, and plan for the worst. Always do both. So have a plan A to fight back, to resist, to be able to push in either the court of public opinion, court of lore wherever you may be, to be able to try to create a freer society for

the rest of us and ourselves. But at the same time, have an exit plan, know how to get out of the I mean, I always like the movie Heat where it said, you know the the has that Robert de Niro has that line, never have anything in your life that you can't walk out on in fifteen seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner. Well, my view is, make sure you have yourself in a position where you can get to wherever you need to protect

your freedom and liberty in fifteen seconds flat. If you feel something that whatever the heat is around the corner of this sort of totalitarian corporatism approach. And so I'm still optimistic and idealistic, but I always tell people always be realistic at the same time. Think of it like you're as you're noting your Jewish nine Berlin. And so

should you quit trying to resist the Nazis? Absolutely not do whatever you can to resist the Nazis, but always but also have an exit plan so that if the Nazis actually sees power, you can get out of there and don't end up on a train to a concentration camp. Hey guys, let me just interrupt this interview real quick, just to plug the show sponsor, and that is Block five. Now. Block five is doing amazing things in the bitcoin finance space.

As a matter of fact, they've cracked some really big news by bringing on the x c ftc UM chair gian Carlo Um, and they are one of the most transparent, most heavily regulated UM companies inside the United States, which gives me a lot of trust into what their services are. Now, I've recently did a video talking about how to retire off bitcoin, and you can do that by leveraging debt and interest against bitcoin and Block five is the number one company in the United States or maybe in the

world to go to and use UM. They are leading the charges or paying interest on your bitcoin if you park it with them, or you can borrow against it. Now, as I broke down in that video, you can borrow against your bitcoin, and when you take debt against it, it's not taxable. It's not a taxable event. You can use that debt for anything that you want, including to live off of, to leverage up and buy more, or

roll it into another asset. UM you can do something like I've done recently, like sell some real estate put that money into bitcoin. Now as that bitcoin price has risen, I'm able to borrow against it and go back and buy the same real estate or something similar, and I still own the bitcoin, and I also own the new asset as well. Lots of ways you can do this UM and block five is the company that I recommend. Down in the description, I have a link that you

can click on. If you choose to use that link, you can earn up the two hund fifty dollars in bitcoin just for using that link. So check out block fine now yeah, I mean yeah, if they could have gone back in time, they would have set that plan up ahead. Um, and now we're kind of looking at the same things happening, which could potentially lead to the same outcome. So we should probably be taking those those same things. So that's something I want to dig into,

so everybody listening, we will. But maybe before that, let's talk about the resisting part. And so I think I often say that the world we're going into is not the world we're coming out of. And so I think I think anybody would probably agree that the way the world's changed in the last twelve months or fourteen months is more than anybody could have imagined. And it seems that they're and I'm not a constitutional law attorney, I do kind of know the Constitution, but it just seems

like infringements everywhere. But then, um, as I've talked to some of my more liberal liberal friends, they don't agree. They're like, well, it's not I don't think it is. Um, So it seems like it's almost something where like I think it's against my constitutional right. So then I'm going to not listen to that law. I'll work against that law.

At some point they may come and get me the police, whatever, and then it goes to court and then at some point the court has to decide whether that is against the constitution. So I'm coming from California with Governor Newsome or or Czar Newsom, whatever you wanna call you to like four hundred executive actions in like six months or something like that seemed a wig unconstitutional. So is that how that works? I mean, am I looking at that right? Yeah? Fundamentally,

And basically there's two different ways to legally resist. One is to force them to try to take action adverse to you and then be able to fight back in the courts that way. The other is to affirmatively take proactive action in certain instances where you sue out of the gate. So, like, you know, I represented a bunch of people during the lockdowns who sued, you know, in one case, sued because they couldn't they couldn't even go set up may maintain their second property that was a

vacation property that they rented out in Michigan. They were prohibited from just traveling from their one home to their other home. In Georgia and Tennessee. Represented someone who wasn't allowed to go to a drive in Easter church service for their kid where there in a car. They weren't even gonna be inside a church. Uh, you know, represented people who were not being allowed to get on the

ballot in Virginia related to lockdown issues. Uh. And then a bunch of the lockdown cases across the country, and many of those cases we were kind of proactive. We didn't wait for a fine to happen or anything else or punishment where they they wanted to take proactive remedies. And in all those cases they the government settled and folded, and so it showed an example of how you could be successful. But this is extraordinary when I hear some people on the left say this is you know, okay

or normal. Nothing about this is normal. We just and most of the world just went under mass house arrest under terms and conditions of release that are worse than most terms of home arrest around the world for in a criminal system. Is so, I mean, you know, you couldn't take your your own children to your own local park, couldn't go to a school, couldn't go to your job, couldn't do basic I mean, it was house arrest. That's

what it was. In some cases, three months, six months, nine months, some places it's still happening to some degree. So it's extraordinary invasion of public of rights. It was an extraordinary declaration of going back to the Nazi Germany example, what was the great legal loophole that allowed Hitler to seize power that the they thought there was that they put an emergency exception within their constitution. That's why ours didn't. And yet the courts started to carve it out, or

the governors at least claimed it existed. So this is unparalleled threats to individual liberty what we've seen over the last year, and I fear it's only gonna get worse in terms of where the global reset agenda is going. Yeah, I want to jump into the globe because that's a big piece. But before we do so, Um, they used this emergency which they think gives them this power against the constitution, which to your point, there is no clause

for that. But then I guess back to my point, they think they have it, they go ahead and use it, and then it's up to us to then challenge that, and somebody has to do that. Whether that be a private city, I guess it has to be a have a citizen hiring you right as an attorney. You can't just go do that on your own. Oh no, you can't do it on your own. In the way I look at it as a private resistance is the key,

and you don't need a majority. You just need ten of the country to refuse to go along with something and the law becomes dead law. Look what happened in Italy. The businesses said, screw it, We're just gonna open up. And are you gonna arrest every business? Are you gonna arrest every customer? Now the chances are you're not, So

mass resistance can really work. Civil resistance has been the most successful mechanism and method for reform in the Western world for the last century, going whether you're talking about Gandhi and INDI or MLK in the United States. So then you talk about the court of public opinion, and so then I think the public opinion is what influences that action. So if they can win, um, it seems like maybe what I saw being in California was um.

The governor put out this order. It's not like a law, but he calls it like an order that you have to wear a mask, but there was no law about that. But then I think then the media picks it up and then all of a sudden people think, oh, I guess I have to do it, and then I just go along with that um And is that kind of what you're talking about. They almost kind of used the media to kind of like change this opinion, and then that changes my behaviors and then eventually kind of becomes

a law. I mean effectively that the legal system only matters to the degree there's public compliance, so that the law, like, you can have all the segregation laws you want on the books. If large parts of the population say I'm not going to obey that and expose you to the court, to the to the court of public opinion, then where the public thinks that law is a bad law, that law ultimately will fall off the books because it's unenforceable.

A law doesn't mean anything unless it's enforceable, and for it to be enforceable, it needs public consent. That's sort of the greatest trick is the four pillars of power underneath have a fifth pillar power, which is the perception of the moral and legit and factual legitimacy of those other four powers pillars of power. So you remove that fifth pillar power, the rest of the system collapses. Our CIA actually goes around teaching other countries this and regime

change effort. So it's always useful to remember it for our own nation at the same time, right how we can use it against them. So if we look at some of these big buckets of rights that have really been infringed on, you kind of locked mentioned some of them. Obviously the lockdowns, being locked in your house, healthy people being being locked down, um, and now, um, you know the vaccines. I guess those are kind of like two

big things. Um. So if I was if I was a homeowner that felt I was unlockedown I didn't like that, which which I don't. Or I'm a business owner that feels that my business has been shut down and I have the right to run that. I mean, what what are how should I be thinking to that? What are my options that I have to kind of fight back

against that? Well, the limitations that were supposed to be in in place constitutionally is that you know, lockdowns couldn't occur outside of very rare circumstances that has to go through legislative approval, that it has to meet certain judicial standards. Unfor most of these lockdowns did not fit that at all. And the unfortunately the courts were just reluctant to enforce the constitution during the first year, so now they're starting

to enforce it. But in my view, if you're a business that this happened to, it was really an unconstitutional taking without payment, you know the I mean they were taking your property, your ability to practice, your occupation, your profession, or your business without compensating you fairly and justly for it. And the reason for the just compensation clause is to make the government pay for anything that they collectively imposed

for the purported collective benefit you. The individuals shouldn't have to suffer that detriment alone or be the sole source of payment of it. So that was just one example on the business side of the equation. On the the health side of the equation, there's many potential objections. I mean, this is an emergency use authorized vaccine that doesn't fit within the emergency use statute to allow it to be compelled or coerced on anybody secondly informed consents part of

the Nuremberg Code of nineteen seven. This clearly violates the Nuremberg Code that said no more human experimentation by any civilization or society. Those have been enforced here in the United States. I think it's a violation of your constitution or right the bodily integrity and privacy under the fourth and fifth Amendments of the U s Constitution. And I think in the employment context or the public accommodation context, it violates theether, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the

Hippo laws. Yeah. So so all across the board. Some of that jumps into some international stuff which I do want to jump into. Um, but so UM. I guess then starting with just kind of lockdown. So if I was somebody who felt that my life was adversely affected, which everybody's was, but more importantly, my business suffered. Maybe I lost my business, which lots of people did. Um, then maybe I would have some sort of acclaim back

if I wanted to sue UM the government for unjust lockdowns. Yeah, exactly with the there's a bunch of lawsuits pending currently and basically I see it as a takings claim. So I think that it was a violation of the UH that they did not compensate you fairly or or effectively or equitably for their deprivation of your property and it's gonna be an open question how much they The courts have tried to limit the takings two very uh, very

few set of circumstances. But just last week they made a major decision that expanded what constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment. In my view, given their definition of it, clearly, what happened in the lockdowns to people's property and business and occupations constitutes and unconstitutional taking if it wasn't fairly compensated for So should each individual person go out and hire an attorney and try to file a suit, or do you think there's some point where like maybe there's

like class action lawsuits that are brought together. How does that kind of play out or or how do you think it could play out? Or should There's currently three major class actions pending, and I would look at if I was a business person in that category, I would look at joining. UH. I would look at either joining an existing class action if it already exists in your state, or uh working with other business owners to create a class action in your particular jurisdiction. Got it, So that's

good for the lockdowns themselves. Um. It seemed like, um the courts were very slow to respond to some of the stuff, maybe because they were locked down to shut down themselves. But then I did see, you know, a lot of cities UH start to overturn these types of things, Like I was an Orange County, California, but I saw San Diego UH rule that it was not right to shut down restaurants for example. Um, so don it seemed like maybe too late, but eventually we started getting some

of these overturned. As you've kind of mentioned, does that set some sort of precedence moving forward, because a lot of people think that, shoot, this was like a test to see how well we comply, and it's probably gonna come back again later, But maybe some of these overturnings

have set some precedents that might make it harder. Hopefully. Absolutely, I tell people from the get go to fight these cases all the way through, to fight them, particularly to time them right, to bring the right cases, right time, right place, because the most important aspect of this from a legal perspective was establishing the precedents that would preclude

this from happening again. Um. And that's why it's essential and fundamental to continue to pursue these legal remedies, even if it's not a current imminent threat, because otherwise they will absolutely repeat this. This was a real live Milgram experiment where they achieved the level of success they have never had before. You know, the crime gets people to give up certain freedoms in the name of safety. Terrorism gets people to give up a certain amount of freedoms

for safety. But it turns out, you know, scary, scary pandemic will get people to forfeit every freedom everywhere fast, in ways that nothing else has ever done before. So you can guarantee they're gonna keep They're gonna go back to this well, and the only question is when rather than if. Well, I I think it's already coming, and I want to ask you some questions about that in

a minute. But so I would say it. You know, I don't like to use labels on political parties and stuff like that for more freedom and less government whatever that means. Um. But but I you know, I think the Constitution was a very amazing invention. The forefathers were extremely smart when they wrote that, and and it seems to me, in my opinion, that the Constitution limited the powers of the government. They didn't give us rights, it

limited their powers. But I guess it's just a piece of paper, and unless somebody picks it up and does something with it, it's kind of worthless. Absolutely. It's the old Mexican saying, constitution made of paper, blade made of steel. Uh. And that's just it. It's always been a reality. And that's where the public actions now that the limitation of state power is public willingness to along. I mean, the real trick of the whole system is getting the public

to assert their rights. If mass if if if the masses do so, then the government, the governing elites have limited capacity. They need to buy hook or by crook get people's compliance. And if they don't get mass compliance, they can't realistically lock everybody up or it becomes counterproductive. Yeah, and I and I agree, And I guess that's the message that I'm really trying to get across. And so

we need people to um know the constitution. Uh. If they feel like they're getting infringed upon, then they need to pursue that on their own. And the way to do that would be um either one just resist and deal with the ramifications and then chase that up or potentially become offensive, find an attorney and then start attacking that.

Absolutely and then the other thing is to be part of anything alternatively that you can, whether you're talking about an alternative self sufficient community, an alternative economic or legal or political jurisdiction where you have your assets, or individual freedom or citizenship, whether it's uh you know, uh, I supports up and called locals, which is a just an independent outside of the big tech monopoly that is established by Dave Rubin, whatever it is, find as many alternative,

independent ways to contest and challenge institutional power wherever and whenever you can when it gets corrupted like this. Yeah, yeah, I want to get into some of that escape plan stuff in a little bit. But um, if we look at a couple of other big things. So one of the things you you kind of hinted on and I heard you talked about when we shared the stage, was about about the vaccines. And one thing you said that, um, it kind of seemed almost what I just talked about

with the governor. We're almost they're bluffing you in a sense where it's like, hey, you have to have this um to come to work. Um. But then you kind of said that and and correct me if I'm wrong, But by showing up to work, you're kind of saying that you have it and they're not allowed to ask you. Um. But then I saw a news article I think two days ago in Houston. A hospital in Houston fired a

hundred and fifty people for refusing to take that. So how do people navigate that piece specifically or think through that? I guess so? Yeah, So, I mean, I don't believe the vaccine mandate is legal for the reasons articulated under the Nuremberg Code, under the Emergency Use Authorization Statute, under

the constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity. How is it you can have a right to terminate a life in the case of abortion under the for bodily integrity and privacy, but not have a right to prevent the government from injecting an experimental drug into your body chemistry. That doesn't make sense to me fundamentally from a constitutional perspective. And then there's the ad A and hippo limitations the

Houston case. The federal judge who ruled on that is one of the dumbest and craziest federal judges or judges in the world. He has one of the highest reversal rates in history. He issued a four page opinion that didn't make much sense, and so we'll see if the courts of appeals affirm that. But that's only one case in one place. There's also I'll be bringing challenges in New York, Pennsylvania, other jurisdictions. Bobby Kennedy's being bringing challenges

in from everywhere from DC to California to Colorado. So there's gonna be a bunch of court cases. Might view is the laws on our side. The key is, as you noted early, a lot of the courts initially want to be for the system, and that's that's just the weakness in the courts, the political bias of their professional class background, and so you have to overcome that to make sure they actually enforced the Constitution rather than deferring

to their friends in the political class. Um. But what I found is I did a sort of a template letter that a lot of people use to send to their employers. And I what I did is I said, whatever you do, it is up to you can't give you legal advice, but hey, you have at it. And a lot of people found success with those letters, not all of them, but many of them did. Because most employers don't understand their risk they don't understand. They could be sued for mandating it. They can be sued for

disclosing that medical information to other people. They can be sued for trying to require a medical exam and violation of the A d A. They can be sued for invading people's privacy, and they can be sued if the vaccine ends up going a well like they're finding for certain age groups right now or you know that, then uh, the employer can be sued for all of the damages from that if they mandated. So you add that up.

A lot of employers are stepping back from the brink and trying to trick people into doing it rather than actually legally compelled them to do so. But in the case of the Houston one, now they have UM and so then they've gotten away with it. The judge ruled in favor. However, if people UM were forced to take it and then had some complications from that, then they would have claims back against the hospital. So I've seen some of the big news seems, as you said, kind

of age groups. So UM it's affecting hearts and men, but in women it seems to be affecting the ovaries. UM and so if you feel that maybe if you've been damaged, then you have claims back against the employer that forced you to take that. Absolutely, and you can imagine the kind of damages. I mean, heart damage can be damaged for life, cut off your life expectancy, kill you early, and your prevent you from and on the other side, for women being able to prevent you from

having children. So I mean these are you know, as an employer, do you really want to be the one that's gonna gamble? And whether this emergency vaccine is not gonna end up like the nineteen seventy six one. We did this in nineteen seventy six, George floor Dot George Gerald Forward rushed through a rushed vaccine and what happened. The vaccine ended up being much more legally costly than

the pandemic it was meant to address. Yeah. Now, um, I've seen states like Florida, for example, I think Texas now creating like executive orders that people can't enforce vaccine passports can't even ask about that. But then on the flip side over on California, back to good old Newsom, he's saying that that businesses can enforce like a vaccine passport. So, um, my current state or my my former state of California. I mean that made place I never want to go

back to if that goes through. But like, how do you look at that? If you if I was in California and I see Newsom talking about having business is allowed to enforce that is, if a private business does that, then it's not a constitutional right, even though it goes against HIPPA. So in this particular, what governs employers for the most if it's not a state oriented mandates, not a government oriented mandate, not a government employer, then the

constitutional restrict would not apply. There is still an argument that the Nuremberg Code of nineteen forty seven would apply. There's also still an argument that the Emergency Use Authorization Statute, which explicitly forbids any emergency use vaccine from being compelled by anybody anywhere, any place, would also apply. But that what is that has never been tested before one way or the other. But I think a DA would apply.

Americans with Disabilities Act and secondarily hip hop the Americans with Disability Acts prevents them from asking certain questions about your medicals and health status regardless unless it's directly relevant and necessary for the occupational position. It also limits their ability to require a medical exam, which is often what effectively asking information about your vaccinated status is. It also prevents them from using your medical status as a basis

to deny you employment. And so the I think a d A is the strongest way to go against employers. I have several current claims relating to mask mandates and public accommodations, so like restaurants, grocery stores, et cetera. So I mean Texas and Florida, path I think right now there's over twenty five states where laws banning vaccine passports are either pending or have passed. And so what it also shows you certain jurisdictions are going to be better

than others. It's also gonna make it hard if you're a national employer. How do you say, Okay, my employee and Utah can't do this, but my employee in California has to. That kind of becomes a little crazy. And so I think the a d A is the best restriction in the biggest legal risk for employers in this context, and even retailers. So I want to go shop at this establishment and they say, we'll show me your vaccine and I'm like, you can't ask me that a d A.

So even in that kind of relationship as well. Absolutely, because in the exuits I brought on the mask mandate cases, they try to demand that the person produce medical proof of why it is they couldn't wear a mask and we're exempted under the law. That's a that's an a DA violation because imagine if some if they decided, you know what, we don't want people with STD st D s uh shopping here at the local whole foods and then they demanded to know your sexual history before you

walked in. There's a reason why these laws are on the books. Uh. And it's the same category of health and medical information that's completely protected from the from the employer under the ad A. People think of the ad A s I have to have a disability. That's not really what the laws about. The law is much broader than that. It's about your employer or public accommodations. Places

like restaurants, grocery stores, et cetera. Can't hospitals, you name it, cannot use your medical status as a basis to either enquire about it unduly or to use it as a predicate to deny you services or employment. Yeah. Now, when I've um, when I've studied the Constitution and the history of of both leaving you know, the the um leaving coming to the United States, and the reasons why they set this up, it seems that the Constitution was set

to be very rigid. Um, and they purposely seems like the forefathers purposely made it very rigid because they knew, based off the previous experience, that they would always try to expand their powers, and so it's set very rigid. However, we hear people today say, oh, it's a living, breathing document and it's meant to evolve over time. Um, I guess what's your opinion on that part. So two things

with that. One clearly that there's a method by which to amend the Constitution, and that's the answer to the living document theory. So when people say, to the extent, what they mean is that certain understandings of privacy, say, have evolved over time. Okay, I agree with that to the extent. That's what they mean. That the Fourth Amendment has to keep up with the times, and that you know,

smartphones didn't exist in seventeen seventy six. But clearly the right to privacy was meant to protect the interests that are involved in what you put on your phone. So in that context, I believe in living application, not interpretation, but application to the real world as it changes. But any amendment to the Constitution, which is what the living document, people really want to do, is they want to amend without going through the amendment process. And that's what I

say is not constitutional. And there's a reason why the amendment process is difficult. It was meant to be difficult because we want to we have these rights that protect individual rights even against the mob. That mob has got to reach super mob status. It's got to be two thirds of the states and two thirds of the people in Congress before that document can be changed. And we're not doing that. You're saying they're going through making amendments

without through the proper due course. Oh, absolutely they They've been substantively amending the Constitution. Honestly, even as soon as it went through. I mean, whenever judges didn't like it, a lot of them found an excuse to modify it and change in ways that don't exist. I mean, the idea that there was debate at the time about whether or not to have a national bank. They explicitly rejected

including it within the constitution. And as you note, it's a if it's not explicitly given, then it's not there. And yet, you know, you know, a few years later some of the elite pro banker federal judges decided, now we're going to pretend that because it wasn't banned, that

somehow it's okay. Uh So that there's always been efforts to sort of miss a lie and misinterpreted and that will continue unabated into the future unless and until we the public fight back and get conscientious constitutional jurors to the process. Hey, sorry to interrupt this video just one more time. I'm not running Google ads, so it's actually way less interruption than I normally would have on a video. UM and that's because it's sponsored by block five UM.

They are opening up the world of bitcoin and financial products, offering to pay you interest on your bitcoin um better than own in a rental property that you have to manage and control and have the risks. You can just earn interest on it or you can leverage against it. Now I plan to hold my bitcoin forever and literally never sell my bitcoin. So how do you do that? Well, if I need money, I don't want to sell that bitcoin.

I'm gonna pay tax on it, all right, I'm gonna end up with less and I don't have the bitcoin anymore. So a better way to do it is to borrow against the bitcoin. So I've put all my money into bitcoin. If I want to buy a car, or I want to buy a house, I can borrow against it at very very low competitive rates, get my house, get my car, whatever that may be, and get to keep the bitcoin. I've done a whole video on this. You can find it.

I'll link it down to the description below, how to retire off a bitcoin without paying taxes, and you can do that with block fight services. A link to the video down below. I'm also going to put a link to block fight if you choose to click on that link to check them out. You can earn up to two dollars in free bitcoin just for using that link. And that's it. Let's go ahead and get back to the interview. So based off of that, then, is there a way to kind of push back on that piece specifically?

I mean, how could we you said it's been happening since the beginning of time. So it almost sounds like there's no hope there. But is there an attack or some way to try to hold the line on that piece right there? Because we can easily see that the Constitution is under attack, is there some way to kind

of hold that ridgety riget e there? Well, Really, my view is the public is the ultimate check because if the public refuses to go along with unconstitutional actions and a sufficient degree, then the state can't get away with it, no matter what politician or what jurist is in their pocket.

So that's that's the number one. The number said. The second one is just continuing to be politically active and engaged in such a way that the most conscientious constitutionally conscientious judges get and seize power, and we still and

we we still get some great constitutional rulings consistently. It's just a constant tension between that wing of the judiciary that wants to undermine the Constitution and redefine it for them to be socratic guardians of the rest of us, and those who still care deeply about it, and we still get a very important win. So the Constitution is still real, it's just always under threat. Now, let's move on to another constitutional topic, which is uh. I think

it was two days ago. Good old Biden gets on there and threatens Americans with F fifteens and nukes, um, which is pretty amazing. Uh. There was a I think Senator Congressman was a booten dag or somebody no sue All a couple of years ago kind of did that on Twitter and it had this huge uproar um. And now the President seemed to be Dame, hey, you can't come on us with we have F fifteens and nukes and basically talking about, um, the Second Amendment taking away

the right of guns. And it seems to me the Constitution is pretty clear right shall not be infringed. I mean, it seems kind of point blank and to the point, um, so what what what's going on with that? So the Second Amendment really was a means of enshrining ultimate individual freedom, power and liberty by constitutionally protecting the right of self defense. And that right of self defense was as to other people and as to the state itself, and that's what

I and it was. It was meant to democratize the violent military power of the state by only allowing voluntary militias to have that power that are drawn from the citizenry themselves. And indeed there was opposition to a permanent standing army at the time of the American Revolution. So that was the goal democratize the states otherwise monopoly on violence and enshrine the right of self defense. That's why those two militia clauses in the right to bear arms

are together in the same amendment. It's to achieve the same objective, to not allow the state to have a monopoly on both the tools of violent and the and the legal right of violence and the as to either other individuals or as to the state itself. And so but it's and for that reason, it's the most powerful

amendment in the entire Constitution. So the I mean, the first Amendment has a lot of great rights, Fourth Amendment, fifth Amendment, sixth Amendment, eighth Amendment, but the second second Amendment is the one that safeguards all the rest of them. They are the ones that are ultimately checked. Now, Biden, is you know, factually correct that the ability to overthrow the United States government through by violent means is almost non existent, which means his excuse for trying to restrict

Second Amendment rights also is non existent. Uh. And also it's pepuliar that the same this is the same vice, the same president that's out there telling people a bunch of unarmed grannies taken selfies in the capital was the greatest insurrection since the Civil War, and at the same time saying you don't have to worry about an insurrection because that's not practical given all the nuclear and armament

powers that we monopolize. Yeah, so it's just a pretext to try to take away people's Second Amendment rights because it's the greatest protection against state incursion of their liberties. Yeah, And it seems to me, I mean almost Uh well, first of all, uh, you it can't work except for oh, it kind of worked in Vietnam. Oh, it kind of works through the Middle East. As you said, the people, right, it's always about the people, and so if enough people

stand up, they're always going to have the power. But it almost seems to me like, uh, I mean, may I mean they want to take away the guns because then they have unlimited power on what they can do. Almost like there's some things they may want to start pushing, like maybe why we haven't gone as deep and as Australia locking citizens in or Canada or uk is because of that Second Amendment right and if they can remove that then they could go even further than those other countries.

Do you think there's something there is that just fearful talk. No, No, that's absolutely true. I mean it's a two levels. One. They want to strip you of your ability to defend yourself against other individuals, so that you're completely dependent on the ST eight for your safety and security and property

and liberty. That's half the equation. The other half of the equations they don't want you to be in effective means of resistance because whether you're talking about the Taliban and Afghanistan, or the Vietcong and Vietnam, or any other place so you could point to that's had internal conflict and insurrection over the past half century, the ability to have nuclear weapons and the ability to have superior armaments, the ability to have big armies doesn't work if you

have a high enough level of indigenous resistance, no matter even if to all what they have are thirty year old weapons. So the so that's they and they know that that's why they want to completely They not only want to disarm people to functionally have the capacity to

more easily have total control. It's a mind game where they want people both terrify but totally intimidated and totally dependent on the government, uh, in order for for their personal freedom, so that they do whatever the government asked

them to do. Yeah, yeah, I mean. And we can look at the United States government has been involved in many government overthrowing and typically what they do is they send in some weapons to arm the arm the resistance, and uh, maybe a couple of cases of a K forty sevens or whatever and maybe some missiles and and that's enough. They don't send that fifteens and nukes to those people. And so I guess over and over we

can see how that's done. I hadn't really thought about, um, the part about taking anywhere our right a right to defend ourselves against someone else, um, because of the dependence issue. But that's a great point that you brought up. And uh, if you look at like the eight stages of the death of the democracy, it goes to dependence and then to um basically complete control. And uh, I was looking at it more like U b I right, as a way to seek dependence, and so they're giving us all

these things to increase dependence. Of course BLM and stuff. They're trying to tear down the nuclear family. They don't want people dependent on a family, no support system. UM. It seemed to me that maybe they were trying to change the argument to self defense because that was that was an argument they could win. They could say, you don't need to self defend, We're here to defend you, UM.

And maybe they could defeat that argument. But the argument like no, we have to defend ourselves against the state um is a much harder argument for them to win. Yes, And I think it's their concept of dependence. They do everything possible to induce dependence. So we have a criminal justice process that we know creates a permanent criminal class, particularly as to how we treat juveniles. Yet we keep

doing it. Why because a permanent criminal class makes people feel comfortable about the police walking around their neighborhoods um constant continuous police presence. We create foreign enemies and and and foreign terrorism to certain degrees. We either let it occur. We either encourage it to incur, incite it to occur,

help it occur. In large part because you know, no foreign enemy, no war, no no war, no deep state, so that you know, So there's they are always constantly thinking how do we induce mass dependence and limit mass resistance?

And at every single thing they're doing, whether it's in the health space, the crime space, the war space, the gun space, the currency space, all of it's about they want you, I mean to the digital currency, a government controlled digital currency is all about they want to be able to control you depend on them for whether or not you can turn your lights on, order food, get a cab, all the rest. That's their ultimate for total control.

They need total dependence. Yeah, let's let's transition into that then, because that's kind of my area. I kind of focus on more on the finance side, and of course I talk about bitcoin all the time. And then kind of what you're talking about is like central bank digital currencies. Essentially bank digital currencies will be the ultimate tool for control, behavioral modification, total surveillance, all those things. And of course

they want that, why wouldn't they. Um, But then we have bitcoin, which is the opposite, which of course they wouldn't want. UM. Constitutionally speaking, UM, is there anything that protects our right to use whatever we want as a form of money or barter or exchange. Um So, for example, UM, hey Robert, that's a great painting or picture you have in the back. Um, let me build you a web site for that, and that would be my labor. I and there's no law against me giving me my labor.

Or hey I have this, uh this custom signed water bottle? Would you trade me? Right? So it's like almost like I could use whatever I want as money. And if I wanted to use bitcoin as money or fine art as money. Um so, is there anything constitutionally that protects that there should be. The problem is the courts have been very reluctant in that space to defend people's rights, whether it's the seizure of gold in nineteen thirty four. I mean, my family ancestry goes the way back to

Rhode Island. We were trying to still print our own currency and opposing the constitution because it didn't have a bill of right to attach to it yet. And then they sit in the army so that that's how that resolved.

So in my view, there's limitations on the state's ability to control, uh, the issuance of currency, what tender people choose to use as barters of exchange and so I don't think the constitution entitles the government to monopolize that, but courts have been an uphill battle and fighting it in the US. So I think you're legally constitutionally entitled to it, but it would be an uphill battle with

their current court system. I mean, I know there's been cases of people trying to create your own currencies that the government's come down really really hard on. So I understand that trying to create a currency. But again, hey Robert, let me trade you these for that, right, I mean, how how can they control that? Um? And I guess that's what I'm asking, like, Uh, is there anything that protects just the free exchange of goods, free bartnership, etcetera.

But my view is it does in in that the they don't have that power in the first place to even regulate that behavior. That's why the mandate in the Obamacare was always unconstitutional. It's just not a federal power in the first place. UM, for which we have evidence

of people using different barners of exchange throughout American history. Uh. The But the flip side of that is they often try to expand the definition of things, uh to include to redefine it as tender to redefine it as currency in such a way that they can get the courts to limit it, even though the Constitution doesn't really authorize

that either. Got it now, Um, specifically regarding bitcoin, which is cryptograph, you know, cryptography cryptographically secured, and I know that specifically went up to the Supreme Court at one point back in the nineties. They said, you know, it was munitions and you couldn't export it. They printed it out, they put it on the counter. It was ones and zeros. They said, this is speech, um, and so code is speech,

and it was upheld there. Um. Of course, under under the Trump administration, Bill Barr he was talking specifically about coming coming for it, and so at some point there's probably gonna be a battle for that again. Um, the Supreme Court already ruling that it was protected under free speech because it's code. Um, where do you think the constitution lies or where do you think that battle may

come if at all? Well, yeah, my view is constitutionally, this is not something the federal government has any entitlement to try to control or constrict. Part one. I mean, these efforts to treat try to claim ripples really a a security on the exchange these alternative currencies, etcetera. But that gives you an idea where the government's gonna go.

They're gonna try to redefine what's happening to fit within a space ace that the court system has previously allowed them to govern, or control or constrict, even though there's

no plain language in the constitution that permits it. And as you know, there's been por there's been prior interpretation that this is either property, that that this is uh just basically speech because of the nature of code, though they have an evolving interpretation of what code is and isn't, so you know, sometimes it's something that can be trademarks,

sometimes something that can't be. And it's because I mean, we're governed by boomers on the judicial side, so you know, these are not the most inspiring tech aware populations in the world. Um, and so that will be sort of the counter it's really dealing with the politics of the court and to where the court of public opinion really matters.

Though I also think the genius of bitcoin in particular was it was created in such a way that in order for governments to truly suppress it, they have to disable the Internet itself and that's just not a practicable, achievable thing for them to do. So they can make life difficult for a bitcoin owner, but they really can't effectively ban it without literally cutting off their nose despite

their face. Yeah, and now we've seen bitcoin transactions happen on ham radios, We've seen them happen on mesh networks, and so even shutting off the Internet wouldn't probably be effective. They'd have to shut down the entire Internet to the entire world at the exact same time, which is theoretically impossible. Um so um, it seems like if they wanted to do it, a couple years ago would have been the time, and at this point the ship is kind of sailed

in that regard. Um. The other thing that's interesting is that, you know, when the government tells you, uh, you know, starts a war on drugs, it doesn't make me want to go do drugs. But when they say we're going to crack down on guns, gun sales go through the roof. And if they say you don't have the right to hold your wealth in a way, we can't seize it and steal it from you, that makes me want to go do that even more so. Back to the kind

of cutting off your nose. It's almost like any crackdown they try and do now only encourage people to use it even more. It seems like, oh absolutely, And I think once they start coming online with digital currencies, people are gonna really appreciate the value of bitcoin because, I mean, what happens when the government can just on one some govern rogue official. I mean, like people get swatted by

you know, people coming into their homes. That happened in New York where a neighbor, you know, claim something about somebody that wasn't true related January six, and all of a sudden their house is getting busted down by swat um. Imagine if the random politicians had that power, random I R S officials had that power. I mean, Biden is talking about having the biggest expansion of the I r S in American history. Add that to digital currency, where with one you know, button, they could all of a

sudden cut off your ability to feed yourself. Uh that You're gonna really realize the value of bitcoin is an alternative under those circumstances. Yeah, for sure, I've talked about that. I think that CBDCs will actually be kind of the gateway into bitcoin. It kind of helps people realize that digital money is real and you kind of get used to it, and then you're like, well, why is this one going up in purchasing power and this one's going down and purchasing power. Why do they steal this one

and not this one? And I think it's a I think it's a it's a gateway drug. Back to the expansion of the I r S. Yeah, I mean they're specifically trying to come after that some of that cryptocurrency stuff, um, which maybe in such a big surprise because when Biden was vice president under probably the exact same administration that's still in power today, they weaponize the I r S against people back then as well. Oh yes, um, I mean,

this is the biggest, most dramatic expansion in history. And to given example, they keep claiming they're gonna shrink the tax gap, even they even claim a hundred billion for the new infrastructure bill is going to come from these new I r S employees being hired, and they're talking about basically doubling tripling the number of I r S people To get people an idea out there, the the amount of the so called tax gap is almost always less than the amount of the illegal source income in

the economy. So that gives you an idea that the tax gap for all the people that underpay their taxes, there's more people that overpay their taxes every year. You don't have to watch the H and R Block commercial to figure that out. The government knows that. So what the government's really talking about is terrifying people into overpaying their tax to being afraid to exercise exemptions and deductions, to find creative means to seize it and steal it. The I R S is the most terroristic entity in

the world, frankly from a governmental perspective. Now you can want, you know, read a book like Confessions of a Tax Collector and it sounds like Lord Conrad in the early nineteen hundreds going into the Heart of the jungle. It's like a real live apocalypse now just in a domestic context. Uh.

So that that is the next great threat. The States are going to use the global tax system to create a global digital currency to and use their tax collecting enforcement mechanisms to try to terrorize and terrify people into forfeiting their freedoms. Okay, sounds scary, um let's bump it

up to a higher level. Now, so you've you've mentioned a couple of times the norm their code, which is under the u N. After World War Two, I believe, right, so it kind of set this the whole world under the u N. I mean, maybe give us a background what that Nuremberg Code is. Sure, so it happens after the Nuremberg Trials, where all these horrors of medical experimentation, medical experimentation that start in the United States in the

nineteen ten the eugenics movement was based here. The four Sterilizations was one of the moral horrendous decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court during that time frame. Almost all these vaccine vaccination cases people site, they're from that same time where they said force sterilizations are okay and detention camps are okay. So there's a lot of legal constitutional reasons to believe that is no longer good law. But at it came

out of that as we said never again. And so the Nuremberg Code was adopted by all the people there present for the Nuremberg Trials, and it said here's all the things we're never going to allow any state or society to do in the future. Contry country, no country, no state, no society, no governing because a lot of the people forget, a lot of the Nazi experimentation, or a fair amount of it did not even take place within governmental capacity, was being done by private doctors, and

they said that too was wrong. Uh so it was that we're not gonna it was basically the right of informed consent, so that before any medical before any medical invasive procedure ever takes place on you ever again. And that is what the vaccine mandate are violating. And in the US courts have said it is enforceable as federal law as if it was written in the Constitution or written in the Federal Statute. M HM. So I wanted to take up to that level because this is more

of a global thing. And so we're seeing just as the power continues to centralize in the United States, States rights are being overrun, especially today with the Democrats trying to consolidate power. In turn it more federal, but it's also seeming to be consolidating globally as well. So the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the u N, the I m F, etcetera, and so um one one

big thing. Um. I just did a video on this and it was about Mark Karney, our good old buddy from the Bank of England, Bank of Canada, you know, uh, advisor to the WF the U N U N on finance and climate change. Of course, he came out with this book and he said that, UM, basically, people have to be prepared to have life be much worse. Um. And that people have to be prepared to give up

all their personal freedoms in order to save the world. UM. That includes the right to travel, the right to eat meat, to and on and on and on under this E s G narrative. Right and uh, that seems to be a massive infringement obviously on Americans with a constitution, but even globally under some of these U N standards as well. And that seems to me to be the ultimate. As you said, they used these scare tactics. So terrorism was really scary, the pandemic was even more scary. But climate

change seems to be the ultimate. Um. But now that seems to be like a global movement. So now how do we look at that. There's no question that climate change is sort of a political pretext for a massive power shift. It's not really about the environment, and you need to follow people like Born Lumberg who talks about how all of this is apocalyptic nonsense. Or you can just look at the or Michael Moore Planet of the Humans and all these green energies right, and this is

from a lefty are all fraud. They're actually worse. I mean, Elon Musk wants to yip about bitcoin's energy. You might want to look at how exactly Tesla's batteries are created, you know. So it's this is just fraud on top of fraud. It's a power shift, it's a power crap and what is it? It's meant to be. It's the ultimate scary thing. That's why they teach six year olds, you know, the world is going to end unless we

have all these crazy changes in power in society. And uh and then they've they've been looking for an excuse to reshape the global world in the way they want it to be, so that they have total control over it. And they're always looking for this, whether it's you know, the digital currencies in India originally pitched as we just want to help people get access to the banking system. I mean, yeah, right, the I mean, so it's it's Uh, there's talk about putting a chip in people quantum tattoo

to monitor your vaccine status. Uh. The and then the same Bill Gates also has a chip that could be tied to a digital central bank currency of course. Uh So the goal is just total control, total control. The Chinese social credit system put on top of it, and every mechanism and method of resistance known demand has to be employed because the elites are just going to accelerate this agenda after their success with the pandemic lockdowns. Yeah. Yeah, so we gotta we gotta start wrapping up here. I

know we're going along. So maybe just give us, uh, if you have any if there's any hope you you said, like the movie Heat be prepared, Um, imagine we're in Germany, etcetera. Is there a couple of things that you could tell people, some things that they can kind of think about or maybe actions that maybe they could kind of help their

future out with. Oh? Absolutely, so. I mean there's getting involved in the court of public opinion where and where you know, maybe in some cases you'd be anonymous, in some cases, be publicly involved in some cases support it, whether that's joining things like locals, whether that's being part of what you're doing with George Gammon is doing what other people are doing in that space, sharing the information, educating themselves. Self empowerment starts with self education. That's the

very first step. George is doing great work on the FED suit that I'm helping him with. UH. The goal is to audit the you know four of the FED in order to audit the FED in order to end the FED in one step after the next. So there's a bunch of Court of public opinion actions, a bunch of legal actions that people can support at different levels that are important. And then for your personal lives, be prepared.

And there's lots of ways to be prepared, and you don't have to have the most economic means to do so.

You can do so in a small scale, mid scale, or a high scale, and that depends on your individual economic situation and whether that's simple basic things like having survival mechanisms in place in advance, like smart people did in Texas so that when they had the power outages, they weren't affected because they had generators, they had backups, they had maybe an RV, they could go someplace to be safe and secure and and have what they need Uh,

there's there's that's what I would call the RV level of independence. But then there's the more sophisticated level of independence. I mean, just living in a state that's also more free and more should have educated people. You can stay within the United States, but it's a big difference whether you're living in Florida or California over the last year. Uh,

and there's just win illustration. And then on top of that, whether it's things like you've talked about with the Puerto Rican tax provisions that can give you some more economic freedom, or the highest level, which is, you know, have a second citizenship in place, have what I call jurisdictional diversification, have a little born identity briefcase, so you can get

anywhere you need to wherever you need to. Independent technology, independent currency, independent citizenship, so you have maximum freedom and liberty moving forward. Everybody can do what they can do to give themselves and the world around them more freedom just by taking action. Yeah. Wow, that's good. That's really good. So you're trying of you're kind of given everybody, uh, all the way across the spectrum um stuff. And I think it just starts at the most basic what you

said is just don't comply. And if if I look at like what caused um, every of every one of these impressive regimes to collapse, like the Berlin Wall coming down, the people stopped complying at some point, and so kind of hold the line. Hold the line here right exactly, never forgive uh never forget. Hold the line. It's it's a good mantra for a wide range of activities in life. Yeah,

all right, okay, cool, So we'll wrap it up with that. Um, I'm gonna obviously I know you're pretty active on Twitter, so we'll make sure we're linked to your Twitter. Um what else should we draw attention to that you want to shout out real quick? Oh sure, if people want to find me or find the centralized source or the independent the exit ramp to big tech monopoly US, it's

at Viva barnes Law dot locals dot com. And created that site to sort of start getting people to it, to get away from the big tech monopolis, to have an exit ramp that's available, to build a template for independent content creators to create and curate uh independent communities that can effectively help change the world one step at a time. To create the equivalent of the Boston revolutionary taverns that helped birth the American Revolution in the first place.

So that's Viva barnes Law dot locals dot com. That's awesome and we're gonna make sure to link down that below. I love that because it's like, instead of just complaining about what's going on with tech today, go create your own. And that's what you guys are doing, So make sure we'll link down to that below. With that, we'll ahead and sign it off. Robert, thank you so much for joining absolutely glad of here. Thanks