Top Secret Lab Escape Covid Report, New Supreme Court Orders, CA Judge Overturns Assault Weapon Ban

Classified COVID-19 report has congressmembers on Capitol Hill astir. Supreme Court of the United States issues new orders and rejects new cases. California Judge overturns old assault weapons ban! And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) expresses concern that various oversight committees were not made aware of the report sooner.​
🔵 Classified COVID-19 report detailing the possibility that the coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan Lab is leaving a lot of congresspeople asking questions.​
🔵 The report, classified as “Top Secret” was drafted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May 2020.​
🔵 Judicial Watch and others uncover new documents from the National Institutes of Health that detail more funding for the Wuhan Lab of Virology.​
🔵 Redacted emails from the NIAID shows a conversation surrounding Wuhan lab funding from April 2020.​
🔵 Remember Dr. Kristian G. Andersen? In March 2020, he wrote an article contesting the lab escape theory.​
🔵 This is contrast to an email he sent on January 31, 2020, to Tony Fauci saying he did not find the virus’ genome consistent with evolutionary theory.​
🔵 Supreme Court releases new orders and refuses to hear challenge to male-only military draft.​
🔵 Filed by the National Coalition for Men, the Court declined to hear the case because Congress is currently considering the issue.​
🔵 Review of National Coalition for Men vs. Selective Service System, denying certiorari.​
🔵 Justice Sotomayor wrote separate opinion respecting the denial.​
🔵 SCOTUS also issued a unanimous opinion (again!) 9-0 against non-citizens who entered the U.S. without authorization.​
🔵 The United States Supreme Court also agrees to hear FBI vs. Fazaga, regarding whether the U.S. government can withhold state secrets when evidence in a criminal case.​
🔵 Federal Judge overturns California’s 32-year assault weapons ban!​
🔵 Judge Benitez wrote that the Second Amendment provides a “muscular” constitutional right and that California’s 30-year experiment has failed.​
🔵 Review of the decision in the case, Miller v. Bonta, coming out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.​
🔵 California’s Governor, Gavin Newsome, calls the opinion a “disgusting slap in the face.”​
🔵 Your questions from Locals.com after each segment!​

LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts (under construction): https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedu

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we're going to get right into it. We've got a lot to get to. We're going to start off by talking about, of course the COVID coronavirus investigation spent a lot of time last week, sort of dissecting some of Dr. Anthony vouches emails got some interesting little tidbits from those documents. And today there's a new story rummaging around on Capitol hill. That apparently there was an old report that was available sometime in May, 2020. So about a year ago today, there was a very detailed report that came out of the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory out of California that had something to do with the lab escape theory. The idea that the Corona virus escaped emerged from a lab in Wu Han the Wu Han lab of virology. In fact, not out of a bat, out of a cave somewhere deep in south China, like they had been telling us, so this report's been around for some time. And apparently our government never really looked at it. A handful of people looked at it, but our Congress people, the people, you know, who set the policy that we're all supposed to follow, apparently they didn't get much information about what was going on. So we're going to go through that story. Then we're going to talk about some funding issues. Apparently the NIH, the national Institute for allergy and infectious diseases, something that Dr. Fowchee ran. Remember, he said in front of Congress said, oh, no, we don't know anything about any gain of function research that's happening out of UConn. Well, it turns out that may not be the case because there are some emails that show that there were some pretty serious, uh, monetary payments made from the U S government over to Wu Han. So we're going to look at that. And then, you know, we talked about this doctor last week, Dr. Christian Anderson talked about him quite a bit, actually. And on my second channel, Robert griller Esq not live all of the recorded stuff on that channel. I did a deep dive on the Nicholas Wade article that spend some time talking about this doctor Dr. Christian Anderson. Well, we just talked about him last week as well. And he just deleted his entire Twitter account. Can you believe that this person was somebody who wrote a letter at the early onset of Corona virus saying that the lab escape theory was totally bonkers. He started sort of getting called out about that. Now he just calls it, I'm done deletes the Twitter account. So we're going to show you what's going on with that. Now the Supreme court in our second segment, we're going to talk about the SCOTUS. The Supreme court of the United States came out with a new list of orders. They are rejecting some cases and they've given us some rulings on some other cases. So we're going to give you an update and go through some of what's going on there. The national coalition for men, they filed a lawsuit against the national selective service system or the draft saying, Hey, if you're just mandating that men come and serve in our armed services and serve the country in foreign wars, that's kind of discriminatory. The year is 2021. We got like 75 genders now. So maybe this is time to revisit this and maybe we can make it a little bit more inclusive and more diverse. Don't we want that in this country, Supreme court said, we don't want to hear the case get out of here. So we're not going to spend much time on that. Other than showing you that it was rejected, then we're going to take a look at a case that the Supreme court did, except in the case of FBI versus[inaudible]. This is a case dealing with state secrets and whether or not the government can withhold evidence from a criminal defendant. Somebody who's been charged with a crime time, if it is a state secret, very interest just in case. So that'll be fun to go through. And then of course, over the weekend, last week, a leftover, we have a judge judge Benitez out of California, federal district court came out and said that that federal, that the local state's ban on AR fifteens out of the state of California, not constitutional anymore. So throws that right out, the assault weapons ban out of California. I think it's been around for like 32 years. Not anymore. This judge came out and said that the constitutional provision, the right to have and keep and bear arms and to protect yourself in some of the underlying principles that are based out of the immutable principles is self-defense. She says those are muscular. I couldn't agree more. So we're going to get into that in a lot more. If you want to be a part of the show, the way that you can do that is by heading on over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our separate platform, which is different from where you're probably watching the show right now. But if you want to be a part of the show, there's a live chat that's happening right there@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And you can ask questions or leave comments or lob out criticisms, just participate in the show. We're going to go through all the different segments. And at the end, we're going to take some questions. So feel free to go and do that@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And before we get into it, quick reminder, I have other channels down there in the description below that you may have some interested in, I released a big video this weekend about a Bitcoin conference that happened over the last about two days a Friday, Saturday, last week. And some days leading up to that very interesting thing happening out of Miami. We had Ron Paul speaking there, we had Tony Hawk speaking. I talked about Kevin O'Leary. Elon Musk was making the news. Jeff Dorsey was talking at the beat court. Bitcoin conferences is, uh, the CEO of Twitter. So a lot of stuff going on on my crypto channel. If you want to check that out, check that out. And we have some other stuff on the R and R law group channel, where we're putting out a lot more content about Arizona law. Of course, as you know, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. And so if you know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs help with a criminal charge in Arizona, we would love your support there as well. All right. So big, long intro enough of that, let's get into the news of the day. We're going to start off by talking about the coronavirus yet again, COVID-19, we're still trying to figure out really where the virus came from. Did this come from a lab? Did it escape from the Wu Han Institute of virology? Or did this come from a cave deep in China? Well, we now know that there was a report that was available last year, May, 2020, that was funded by the government that was conducted in a lab in California called the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory, which is a very, very big lab. And apparently they did an investigation into this. They did an inquiry, they did a deep dive into the origin of the Corona virus. And the big question here now is why don't we know what's in the report? Well, apparently it's top secret and it's so secret. In fact, that even our own government really didn't spend much time looking at it because today there are several lawmakers on Congress in Congress, on Capitol hill who are slightly concerned that maybe they did not get this report back in May, 2020, when it would have been pertinent. You know, when our legislators were deciding what to do and how to respond to the Corona virus, maybe if it was a lab escape, maybe if this was a genetically engineered bio weapon, hypothetically from the Wu Han lab of virology, maybe our policymakers would have responded differently. Maybe Donald Trump would have responded differently. Maybe more lives would have been saved. And it sounds like we had this report, it was available for a year now, and we're just sort of getting catching wind on this. So we're going to do some heavy lifting. We're going to take a quick look at some background story from CNN. We're going to look at what's going on with the Lawrence Livermore actual laboratory. I want to show you, I didn't even know this thing existed, but it's actually pretty interesting. So let's start by going to CNN here says that classified report with an early support for the lab leak theory. Re-emerges, isn't that interesting as a focal point for lawmakers digging into COVID-19 origin. So re-emerges, you know, I remember that there were a lot of news organizations that made sure that the first time it emerged, it really didn't go anywhere. Remember this, when a lot of people were talking about, Hey, you know, maybe this is something worth investigating. A lot of people all over the internet, a lot of politicians, a lot of news media channels, all of a sudden, no, you're not allowed to talk about that. Nope, that's racist, that's even phobic. And what we're going to do here is just believe what Dr.[inaudible] told us and what Dr. Christian Anderson told us. And we're just going to accept Dr. Fowchee, his words as gospel, and any of you peasants out there who dare challenge our authority. Well, we're just going to throw you off the internet. We're going to call you a conspiracy theorist. We may have cost you in the store with your children and the list goes on and on. We may actually fire you from your job and out you on social media because you ask questions. Well, now CNN is coming back out and saying, oh, it's re-emerging oh, it's just reemerging. No, you people buried it for about a year. Now it's reemerging. Because those of us who don't accept the narrative point blank are now asking or demanding answers. So here, this story was written by Katie Beau Williams, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen published today. This is a classified report that was drafted last year warning that the COVID-19 pandemic might have leaked from a lab. And Wu Han has re-emerged as a focal point, as lawmakers are seeking to revive the search for answers. And again, this, you know, these, these stories irritate me so badly. It's like, yes, I appreciate when you're in the middle of a crisis, it's hard to understand what's happening because you're sort of trying to just tread water. Everything is funneling in your direction. All of the information, like a fire hose. It's nice that we can look back. Hindsight is 2020, but we saw in my opinion, an irresponsible maneuvering narrative setting from the media at the outset. And we're going to get into this, but we've already talked about this previously here, that the Dr. Dan Zack article came out sometime in, I think in February, then we have a March article from Dr. Christian Anderson. Then we have this may report that comes out after this. Both of those two yahoos are telling us, oh, no, definitely didn't come from a lab. Although they had really very little ability to make that conclusion. They did anyways, largely in my opinion, they did a speculating here because they have some sort of connection to the lab and they want to be as far away from the blast zone radius as humanly possible. So they were distancing themselves for it. But then, you know, something happens if you recall, we were in the middle of this narrative all last year, that anybody who was not compliant, 100% compliant was killing grandma. We, we heard that all all day and a report comes out in may. That sort of gives us some more information here that might have helped people decide how to respond to this crisis. And on the back of the two prior reports from Dan Zack and Anderson that disclaim elaborate hypothesis, we have this one that says, actually, it's kind of likely. So what happens then? Well, the report, it was issued by researchers at the government backed Lawrence Livermore laboratory in May, 2020. It found that it was possible that the coronavirus escape from a lab and Wu hunt, according to, for people familiar with the document at the time at that at a time when that line of inquiry was considered politically taboo, right? So it's not science. We were screamed at that. This was science all the entirety of last year. And I remember, I, you know, I was doing some of the show and I was trying to run an office, trying to run a business and trying to, you know, help our clients and go to court. And it was a nightmare. Everybody knows that I wasn't the only one living through it, but for those of us that said, Hey, you know what? We actually have clients that are in custody. Okay. If you don't, you know, go to, uh, your job, maybe somebody doesn't get a delivery on time or something like that. Right. And I'm not trying to downplay other people's professions. I understand we all have very important things that we do in our lives, and I'm not trying to belittle that. But our, our practice is a little bit unique here as a criminal defense attorney because our clients sit in custody. So if we take time off, they just sit there. Right? And so there was this big response from a lot of lawyers out there that said, oh gosh, you know, we just have to close up, shop everybody, stay home, everybody lock up and, you know, just put your masks on and shut the courts down and shut everything down. And I'm looking around at my colleagues going, are you people whacked? We have a lot of people who are, who are still innocent until proven otherwise who are in custody, who have not been processed through the justice system, just sitting there rotting away. And you just want to go home and just put your mask on and not think about the justice system anymore. Give me a stinking break. And if we speak out a little bit about that, there were people in Arizona and elsewhere, and other lawyers and other politicians and doctors, and everybody who would come out and tell you what a monster you were, what a piece of garbage you were and how much you were doing to kill America and kill grandma. And what an unethical piece of trash you really were. And I mean, I sort of felt that way for several months last year until I just got over it and stopped caring about it. Aren't you do whatever you want, lock yourself up. I don't care anymore. So let's go back to the article. It's not clear how influential the paper's findings were in advancing the government's understanding of the viruses origins, nor whether the document weighed in on a simmering debate over whether the kind of research being done on Corona viruses at the lab might have contributed to the creation of COVID. It's like the most important questions. They'll report also found that the virus might have developed naturally in the wild echoing what the intelligence community now says. It believes and multiple sources with the document downplayed its significance, but the report is taken on fresh political power on Capitol hill, as the possibility that an emerged from the Wuhan Institute of virology as gained mainstream legitimate in recent months, you know, this is the, that I have so much with the science, right? Like we were being told that it's science, science, science, listen to the science. There's no science here at all happening, right? It's all political BS that we see, you know, downplayed its significance. You don't really do that in science, right? You don't really downplay the significance. You try to explain what the results are, but if the results are what the results are, that's the conclusion. That's not what happened here. Our government is incompetent. So they downplayed the significance of it. Significance of it. We've got this happened on May 22nd. Don't even know, you know, what, what role does had in understanding the origins of the virus. Don't understand whether the document weighed in on whether we should do more research about this. The whole thing is just a mess and we are prepared for this, right? We, you know, you know, one of the big shocks last year for many people was how woefully under prepared. We were everything from top to bottom and we had no PPE. We had just hospital beds. We were concerned that we're gonna be overflowing with people. We've heard all the stories that there are more dogs filling out with bodies. And you know, we're going to have to start stacking people in the streets and stuff like that. And the list goes on and on. And so you're sitting around, Hey, you know, don't we pay a boatload in taxes. Don't where does all this federal money go? I thought we were, you know, what's what are all these multiple letter agencies doing? NIH, NIH ID and all these different, you know, who I know it's an international organization, but we pay them. And all of these doctors, all of these bureaucrats out, they're supposed to be ready for something like this, sheer incompetency across the board. And only now are we sort of starting to get our feet under us? The question that I always had, where does all that money go? Well, now we know it goes over to the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory. And this is just one little area of a lab in this country cycle. Look here. We can see the logo. Lawrence Livermore national laboratory established in 1952 by UC Berkeley, 69 years ago. They are a big, big, big agency. Let's take a look here. It says it's a federal research facility in Livermore. Originally. It was a branch of the Berkeley national lab in 1971. It was designated Alaska national laboratory, 1981, a federally funded research and development center. So FFR DC primarily funded by the U S department of energy managed by a number of different agencies. In 2012, it created a synthetic chemical element called liver memorium element one 16 and named after it. Okay. And this is a big, big agency. I want to tell you, they do a lot of nuclear weapons research. They do plutonium research and they do some other interesting projects over here. You'll see that the L N N L supports a broad range of scientific in Texas tech, Nichole disciplines here. We've got chemistry, materials, life science research, focusing on chemical engineering, nuclear chemistry. We got material science, and then we have biology and bio nanotechnology, right? So pretty, pretty heavy stuff. We have physics coming in there, like high pressure physics, accelerator physics. We've got, uh, emphasis on carbon climate energy, water environment, national nuclear waste repository. We have some more here about micro nanotechnology lasers, optics. We see some more biotechnology, right? We're talking COVID here. So we've got biotechnology to computer science, several technologies like solar energy, fusion, energy, and advanced battery research and all of that. Right? So they do a lot there. And most of this doesn't sound like it's really, even COVID related. It sounds like nuclear physics and engineering, precision lasers, optics, nanotechnology, and all of that. But I wanted to show you the budget for something like this. So here we have research nuclear and basic science. Then it also says the budget here is$1.5 billion. Okay. Staff 8,000. And that's about the same as the numbers that I ran. So 1.5 billion. And you know, we, we hear about the government just throwing around billions of dollars all the time. Like it's tit money. Oh, a billion. No problem here. Take two. So they do that regularly. And when we see numbers like this, it's not that big of a deal. You think, okay. 7,900 people, about 8,000 people. Well, in Arizona, we have the city of Phoenix and the city of Phoenix is the fifth biggest city in the United States. It's behind New York city, LA, Chicago, and Houston. So it's big, big one. And we've got the city of Phoenix police department. What is their budget to run the entire city? Okay. A lot of people, fifth biggest in the world. It's 745 million. Okay. It's less than a billion. So we've got 745 million. And that houses about 4,000 employees. I looked at the numbers 3000 officers, 1000 support. So that is literally half the size of the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory. We got seven 45 million here. It's about one half of 1.5 billion. We have about 4,000 employees here. They have about 8,000 employees. Okay. So this lab, this one lab is basically double the size of the Phoenix police department, the fifth biggest city in the country. So that tells you what size scope this project is. Okay. It's massive tons and tons of people there. And in fact, this is what it looks like. If you take an aerial shot of it, okay. This is the Lawrence Livermore laboratory. And it looks honestly like a college campus. Okay. I went to a college here, Arizona state university, and it CA it looks like, uh, you know, they got, they got a lake on that. There's a lake here. Okay. Here's a screenshot from Google. You see the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory. We've got open campus, high performance, computer innovation. We have a car wash right here. We have a delivery center. We've got, um, what else? We've got credit union here. We have a cafe over here. We have another credit union here, two credit unions, we've got a veterinary care. So we got up, you know, animals take care of their, we've got 10th street or an organic garden is over there. That's nice. Uh, got office for your badges. Oh, we have a fire department as well. So we have an entire fire department as part of this, uh, organization, which is good. Cause if you're going to be playing around with nuclear material are gonna want to put a fire out. If that happens quickly, right? Don't want Sharon Nobel going on over here. So it's a big organization, a lot of money. A lot of people working there, a lot of very smart people working there, probably a pretty important report, right? If this top secret confidential report is out there, uh, going to imagine that maybe we want to take a look at what's in it. And our, our elected officials at the minimum should absolutely be reviewing it before they set national policy and global policy in a way that might actually impact everybody's lives in the trickle down effect. So we're going to go back to the article from CNN says the document has been quietly available to key lawmakers on Capitol hill since last year, according to two congressional sources, but some Republicans on Capitol hill are expressing frustration that they didn't have access to the documents. Sooner GOP members of the energy and commerce committee have expressed concern about this, saying that the report, they want more access to the report, which has been classified as quote, top secret. Here we have red Morgan Griffith. This guy he's from Virginia ninth circuit. It says, quote, I think a lot of us think oversight committees probably should have been made aware of the report a little bit sooner. Yeah, no kidding. You think so the panels Republicans have been conducting their own inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. They've requested additional documents from the national Institute of health, the department of Homeland security and the state department Livermore, which is the lab that we just heard of is one of the places we want to get answers from because we think they have a bigger piece of the puzzle than we originally thought back in March said Griffith Sinclair casting group, which is a media company first reported on the documents existed one year after it was first issued. The report matters now, not so much for what it reveals, but because it offered some early support for the theory that the virus leaked from a lab at a time when, at least publicly the intelligence community was affirming, that it believed the virus was not manmade and likely originated naturally. Why is that? Why is the intelligence community? Why was that their original posture? Because it sounds pretty obvious that they were mistaken. Meanwhile, two former officials close to the Trump administration investigations into the origins say that the Livermore report was not discovered by policymakers probing the matter until months after its production. Oh, so, so they just didn't get the memo, right? They didn't get the email. Ah, dang. Don't you hate when that happens? You have like a$1.5 billion lab that says, Hey, you know, this global thing that we're working on, the biggest crisis in my lifetime that I've ever been a part of is happening right now. We think that it might've been I'm from a lab in Wu Han China specifically. Hmm. Nobody got the memo. That's the government raising the specter for some former officials of the so-called deep state career bureaucrats inappropriately burying the area information that was validated the police pursuits of the Trump administration. Isn't that curious? That's an interesting paragraph and admission here from CNN. So they're saying that maybe some people had a vested interest in one theory versus the other. Let's just play this out a little bit. What, in fact, what if the narrative from the mainstream media had in fact been that this was a lab leak from China that maybe they were responsible for this, and maybe they did cover this up. Suddenly which candidate during a presidential election looks more attractive. The candidate who was in bed and cozy with China or the candidate who has been consistently opposed and hard on China, which one becomes more attractive if the American population, Korea, China, I don't know, question there. So maybe there is a conflict of interest here from some of the people of the intelligence community. Who've already expressed a lot of disdain for Donald Trump. We saw that previously with all of the Peter struck and that whole FBI saga, we don't need to revisit that, but maybe they're still compromised. And maybe they still have a bone to pick with a certain political ideology in this country. And maybe people in America are dying. Huge swaths of people have died as a result of this political decision to discuss the coronavirus, the origin of the pandemic in political terms, not scientific terms, and then bury the from ever reaching the people that it needs to in order to further your political agenda. Yikes. Still other congressional officials familiar with the report. Even those who support an investigation into the theory say that the energy committee Republicans are touting, its fine. These findings now as a purely political ploy aimed at validating Trump who's championing the lab theory. These people believed politicized search for Kovats origin. So, okay. So they're mad at you. You're politicizing, which is like, okay, so, so what right. If it's the right answer, who cares should shouldn't we celebrate the people who are like I told you, okay, Rand Paul, a person who looks the best out of all of this. Honestly, he's been going after Dr. Fowchee for a year now walking in and out of Congress, not wearing his mask that I've already, I've already had it. I'm already immune. Leave me alone, take your anti-science BS and take it out of my face to his credit largely. And now he's been absolutely vindicated proven 100%, right? So shouldn't he be the political beneficiary of that? I don't understand that if you make a political, if you make a correct call, you should reap the political benefits of that good decision. CNN. No, oh no. Or not CNN, but the uh, the, uh, who are opposed to this report being released are suddenly saying, well it's political. Of course it is political because it was the right call. A house intelligence committee official said the panel had already reviewed the document as part of its investigation. And two other congressional staffers said that the lawmakers on at least two other committees had previously had access to the information if they had wanted it. So, you know, they, they look, it was there, it was in their inbox. They didn't open it up. That's their problem. Multiple sources, caution, CNN. They said the document doesn't offer any smoking gun that proves one theory over the other. The report largely comes to the same conclusion that the intelligence community has disclosed publicly in recent weeks. According to multiple people familiar with it specifically that the zoonotic theory of the virus origin in the lab leak theory are both plausible. Yeah. But all right, well thank you for that now, but that was not the story for the last year, but it does. It does offer some circumstantial evidence supporting the lab leak theory, validating what was then considered a fringe notion. Yeah, it was. If you were burying your head in the sand, everybody else, I think connected with reality knew what it felt like. Okay. We have seen, I made this point before we have seen how our government and world health organization and the international community respond to outbreaks. We've seen it swine flu bird, flu H one N one, whatever they all are on and on and on. This was not that this was something different. This did not feel like just natural bubbling up of a virus out of some bat naturally felt like something a lot more sinister. And our government responded that way. So to China, so to the rest of the international community, felt like they knew something that we didn't. It turns out we didn't know. They just didn't tell us. Republicans are pushing the administration, declassify more information. It says that help. It could help scientists and public health experts come closer to an answer. The department of energy, which oversees Livermore, brief the house energy and commerce committee on this. According to two people familiar, the labs is a collection of 17 elite scientific research facilities. They're going to play a key role in the 90 day intelligence review of the core COVID origins that president Biden announced publicly last month. So you remember that Joe Joe comes out after they had gone in there and stop the inquiry that was started by the Trump administration. They stopped that. Then all of a sudden these emails start leaking. The lab leak theory hypothesis comes into full play. Thank you very much to Nicholas Wade and other journalists actually doing some background work on this. It comes to fruition, Joe Biden asleep at the wheel turns around and says, oh yeah, forgot. We're going to do this 90 day intelligence review. So get back to work on that issue. So we'll see where that goes. Not holding my breath on any of that. One of the other outstanding claims that has been long lasting and lingering for some time here was the idea that the us government didn't fund anything in China. And remember Dr. Fowchee was called into Congress and ran. Paul had him there and he was saying, Hey, you know, what about funding? You are the director of the national Institute of health, infectious diseases. And I aid all of those health organization letters. You will. I run all of that. Right. What about this funding for gain of function research in blue hunt in China? Did you do that? Yes or no. Fowchee go, oh, you know, hemming and hawing about it. He sort of reminded me of the bill Clinton. It's the definition of what the word is is or whatever that, that was. Same concept while gain a function, you know, ran gain a function. No, we weren't doing gain a function. Okay. Well, what is the specific definition of gain of function? Because now we're splitting hairs here. Are you talking about, you know, what's the definition of function? Well, what's the definition of gain and you know, it's all this type of garbage going on. Ran Paul knew what the ultimate answer was was of course. Yeah, of course. The U S is funding some of this research and facts. Oh no. Oh no, we don't do any of that. So of course that's not accurate. Right? The epic times came out and said the U S gave more money to a Chinese lab for bat research. Then Fowchee claimed you're kidding me. This was published back on June 5th, updated June 7th, which is today posted by Zachary. Cyber says the United States gave more than$800,000 to the top level lab in China, from which some believe the virus emerged according to newly released documents. And we're going to go through these quickly here. I want to show you what we've got here over from Jack.[inaudible] says breaking judicial watch. So give them a follow releases. The new, the NIH, the new NIH emails, detailing even more funding for the Wu Han lab. So let's take a look at this email. You can see down here, it says the first one who was sent from chase Crawford to Q arch and Kloss, Jill Harper, Hillary Marston, Martin Johnson, and Courtney bill at down here. This was sent back on April 21st, 2023 30 in the afternoon. It says subject the act chin by cob today, four 21 review the draft and I a I D response to the Wuhan Institute of virology funding questions. Okay. So they're drafting a response to Wu Han and their funding question, right? Funding funding. Good afternoon. The NIH ID received below the up question from minority staff to the house labor, HHS appropriation subcommittee regarding the funding level for the EcoHealth Alliance project. Oh, remember them? That was Dr. Dan Zack, who posted the article in the landset journal that started off the entire fake news, that this was a natural emergence, the EcoHealth Alliance project sub award to the Wu Han Institute of virology. So remember how this goes. It goes from the NIH aid down to eco health, which is an organization that is of course not affiliated with the U S government. And then other than their contracts, then the EcoHealth Alliance will subcontract that out over to Wu Han. Hmm. Now we have here, that was for fiscal year, 2019 complete funding history history in the signature line below. So they're asking this question, there's a question that this, this, this governmental body has to respond to. It says question. Do we know why the sub award amount for Wuhan Institute of virology went down in 2019? Oh, just random fluctuation question mark. Okay. So they're, they're wondering, uh, you know, last year we got this much money, uh, but this year it's less than that. Is this just a random fluctuation? Or do you have a, an answer? Do you have any on that? What can you tell us about this? And so what is the response? Oh, look at that gray box. Don't you hate that when that happens, that means this is redacted right here is what it should have been. The OSI gr ledge, which is, you know, this body has worked with the D M I D to develop the following proposed response. And it's all redacted here, B five. We don't know what was said. Did they respond? It's just a fluctuation or not. And then we have here another redacted XPLAN. So we know that there was some significant funding going on. We know that they, there, there was more, there was a reduction and then they re they issued it response here. Right now, there is another email that comes out over here. It looks like this. I remember those sub awards we were talking about here is a breakdown of those. So we have back all the way down to 2014. This is the N I a I D sub awards to the Wu Han Institute of virology. So you see how this is working, this trickle down. And I aid typically to EcoHealth EcoHealth back over to the[inaudible] Institute and you can see the exact chain right here. And I aid funds these sub to these organizations, all of which are EcoHealth right here. And then where do they, where does the organization award? They're the recipient sub award all over here to the Wu Han Institute of virology. So we can go back 2014 all the way to through 2019, they got a lot of REApps and it's all for understanding the risks of bat Corona virus emergence every one of these 2000, 19, 18, 17, 16, and so on. Now, the funding, as you can see has fluctuated a little bit, just like they said, but for the last years, 18, 17, and 16, they were all the same,$159,122 a piece. Then it basically got cut in half in 2019, which of course prompted them to say, what the heck happened? Why'd you cut our funding in half. So when you add it all up, what are the numbers say for the last while? At least six years, seven years, maybe eight 26, 276,$7,000, 800 and a quarter thousand dollars, lot, lot of money, right? A little bit different than what Fowchee was saying. Oh, no, this is good. The visual here on Twitter, it's commander data, 85. As you can see here, one of the best characters from the next generation, if you've ever watched that episode, watch that data was kind of a childhood hero. Well, well, well, what is this? We go over here to government tribe. We have a government funding project grant that has been tracked for 3.7 million. See that here 3.7 million total dollars obligated. The award date was on June one, 2014. It looks like it's funded all the way through June 30, 2025. So the details of this project grants funded by the NIH aid awarded the EcoHealth Alliance. This was awarded on June one, 2014, understanding the risk of the bat coronavirus emergence. Okay. So we saw that in this summation here that it was 826,000. It looks like this is set to be funded all the way up through 2025 federal grant program. EcoHealth Alliance is awarded that contract. And of course it goes back for the study of the bat coronavirus. So, you know, all right, well there you have it. I mean, that's the, that's the data right there. Okay. And, and next up while we're just knocking them down. How about this, Dr. Christian Anderson, remember Dr. Christian Anderson, Dr. Christian Anderson was this guy. We talked about him previously, looks like this. And if you recall, there was this letter. Okay. So this was published, uh, on March 17, 2020. This was in nature medicine. So remember this date March 17, 2020 early. Remember, I think it was, it was March 13th when Trump declared the national state of emergency and started to start a really, to lock things down. I mean, it, things really started getting serious in March. We had a lot of the, you know, foreign travel advisories and lock downs and all of that stuff happening up leading until this. So we're, we're in early we're in early Corona virus. He comes out and writes this article March. This summation here comes from Nathan Wade. He's our Nicholas wait, it says a second statement had enormous influence in shape public attitudes. It's this letter published on, on that March date. He says, let's take a look at this. He says to the editor, you'll notice Dr. Christian Anderson's here. We got this Dr. Andrew[inaudible] about Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes, and Robert Gary. He goes through, when he says SARS cov two, it's the seventh Corona virus known to infect humans. Here we review what can be deduced about the origin. We offer a perspective on the notable features and we discussed scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analysis clearly show that co SARS COVID two is not, not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Remember him when he said that? Hm, March 17, 2020. I wonder if he had the information at that time to really do a proper analysis and to come to that conclusion. Well, Nicholas Wade says no. So unfortunately this is another case of poor science in the sense defined above true. Some older methods of cutting and pasting viral genomes retain telltale signs of manipulation, but newer methods called the no cm or seamless approaches. They leave no defining marks on a virus, no. Or do other methods for manipulating viruses, such as serial passage, the repeated transfer of viruses from one culture of cells to another. If a virus has been manipulated, whether with a seamless method or by serial passage to no way of knowing if it was in fact engineering, Dr. Anderson and his colleagues were reassuring their readers of something I could not, no. Okay. Back in March. So why do they do that? Then? You know, what's up with that now. He just deleted everything. Think off of Twitter. Isn't that interesting. We have a virologist who told Fowchee that SARS was potentially engineered. He just nuked his Twitter account. This is over from Tyler durden@zerohedge.com. And we'll read that story, but first I want to show you this, okay. This was his account, Christian Anderson over here. And, uh, this guy, Billy boss Dickson says that little Anderson just deleted 5,000 tweets content wording on that. It says lab leak and vid colon saw he deleted his tweets before March 7th, 2021, and suggested saving them via the Google cache. So why is that right? A California virologists who told Anthony Fowchee that they potentially engineered. He just deleted more than 5,000 tweets. He runs the lab in Anderson, California, send an email to fall. She said the unusual features of the virus. And this is what he wrote on February one. Okay. So let's, let's just timeline this out February month, February 1st, sorry. He wrote an email that said the unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome, less than 0.1%. So one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some features potentially look engineered adding that he and his team found, quote, the genome inconsistent with expectations, um, evolutionary theory, the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. Meaning if this thing evolves naturally, we would expect it to look a certain way because we've seen that before. We've seen how other viruses look. This one that we looked at doesn't look like that the genome is inconsistent from that. So he posts that, or he sends that email on February one. And then suddenly March comes by March 17th comes by. So between February one, March 17th, about 45 days, 47 days, let's say he had time to reanalyze everything throughout his old conclusion, come up with a new article, connect with five other, four other people and write an article and publish it. That is the opposite of what he said previously. He learned a lot of science or something at that time. Interesting. It says here that Anderson was responding to an article sent to him by Foushee exploring the origin of the virus. The next day, Fowchee sent an urgent email to his deputy, Hugh with the subject important writing. Whew. It is essential that we speak this morning. Keep your cell phone on, read this paper as well as the email I will forward. You have tasks today that must be done. We talked about that email last week, the document attached was BARR Barrack. She at all nature medicine SARS gain a function PDF talked about this last week. So right after one of Fowchee, his trusted scientific advisors suggest that COVID could be man-made while Fowchee and his associates publicly dismiss the possibility as a conspiracy theory, he then shot a research paper concerning gain of function research, which Fowchee was funding[inaudible] to his deputy. Hmm. Interesting. Very interesting. And then Christian Anderson just starts deleting everything, right? So here were his tweets originally. So we have tweets 9,029, right? Google has still cashed some of those things. So you can still go find them. Google is going to be removing them. So he goes from 9,000 over to 4,000. They're deleted, you know, bunch of those deleted 5,000 weeks this week says, this is a lie. All the tweets preceding March 7th are deleted. This isn't some tool to auto delete tweets after an end number of time elapses. So he responds, he says, oh, my old tweets are automatic after he got busted right there, auto deleting. He says, no, they're not. Thanks. Thanks though. Then suddenly yesterday, oh no, it's gone. The account doesn't exist anymore. It's probably all of those internet trolls. I would guess. I don't, you know, I don't know, you know, who have questions about his role in maybe papering over the origin of the Corona virus? Probably just kind of tired of that. This was what zero hedge set. This was the original email that we spoke about this last week. I don't want to spend any time on it, but this was from Fowchee to Christian Anderson says, thanks, Christian. Talk soon on the call. This was the paragraph here. That was very important. Tony. He said, Jeremy Christian, this just came out today. If not, this is of interest to our current discussion, right? So forwarded them something and then says here, LA here's the here's that line. The genome is inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. That was the line right there. This is an email from February one, 2020 shortly thereafter, March 17th. He writes a report disavowing all of that. All right. Well, here we have our final takeaway from zero says at least he won't have to keep blocking pesky questions from inquiring minds because before he deleted his account, he blocked zero hedge. So, Hmm. Okay. Well, wonder if he'll keep getting contracts from the federal government. Probably let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where you can join in on the fun on the show, as well as I would encourage you to check out some of the other channels down in the description below. So first question here today is from Sharon. Courtney says we never heard about this because of the media Democrat deep state agenda, likely backed by the CCP to destroy the economy and sink Trump. You know, honestly the more and more we get into this rabbit hole of the more and more I think that is actually accurate. Boxy punk chick says what really upset me is when Arizona and Utah had the highest COVID positive rate in there, there was for those incarcerated, they wouldn't even release people who were expected to release and held them longer than the sentence. Yeah, it was a disaster here. The whole thing was, was everywhere. I mean, it wasn't just Arizona. Everything was a mess. And there are, you know, there are, are innocent people. People don't recognize this. There are many innocent people sitting in custody all over the place and they go, what? Yeah, because people can't bond out. You think about innocence until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence. Only if you can afford to get out of custody. If you can't afford to get out of custody, you get picked up on something. You can't bond out because you're unemployed or you have no family. You have nobody to call you just sit in custody. You haven't been convicted of anything. You haven't been pled guilty of anything. The only standard that has been met has been enough probable cause. And that's it for a judge to keep you in custody. It's a sad thing. And people just forget about those people. It's really, really awful. Jeremy Machita says the Lawrence Livermore national laboratory in Livermore, which is considered to be in the east bay area. I know some people that work there, a lot of groundbreaking research has come out of that lab, such as the PCR tests. I have no doubt about it. I'm sure they do amazing research. I would love to take a look at it and I would like our elected officials to do so as well. Maybe it would give us some clues as to what happened here. That apparently it just landed in our Congress people's email inboxes and like, oh, dang it. It got flagged as spam. Can you send that again? Their lab send that over to me. Sharon Courtney says many lives could have been saved. If not for Trump derangement syndrome. According to Victor Davis Hanson, Trump's had the virus came from a Chinese lab. Therefore it couldn't have possibly come from a Chinese lab. Yeah, I know there was, there was that all that's what the entire year felt like. It felt like everybody was saying stuff that was just sort of, not really based in reality. And if somebody said something, people would say the opposite for no reason you're going, what? All right, Georgia peaches is here says, Hey, rod just want to thank you for how for all the great information you present, I'm at a loss and how you can present some of this craziness with a straight face. LOL. I'm a gal from Georgia. Not to be confused with the guy from Florida, Georgia peaches, Georgia peaches. You know, I've been to Georgia. I've been Georgia. When was that? Oh my gosh. It was a boy. And it was a wild experience. As somebody coming from Arizona, we have dry heat here. I went to Georgia, I think in the summer it was not a dry heat. And I've been to Miami too. And Georgia was woof. It was tough one, but I was a boy. So who knows, uh, good to see you, Georgia peaches. I don't know how, you know what, I don't know how I keep a straight face either. I don't know. Uh, sometimes I want to throw my screen just right into the wall or out the window something, but I don't do that meditation. All right. We've got Joe Snow says, did CNN just call out the deep state? You know, I can't tell anymore. It's like, they're backtracking so hard right now. Everybody's coming out. All of the people who one year ago were, were like screaming from the rooftops at anybody. Talking about these issues was a lunatic and a conspiracy theorist are all coming out now going, wait, what? Hey, hold on a minute. No, there might be something here. Now that you mentioned it, we're all going. What, what kind of bizarro world is this? All right. Glad you're a board. Hopefully we get to the bottom of it. Sharon Whitney says intelligence community is an oxymoron. These are the same folks that said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while they've been, they've been pretty incompetent. I just think across the board. I mean, I think government just in general, isn't competent Kenny. One B says LN and L has been extreme, has been hit extremely hard with vocalism so hard that friends of mine highly accomplished in their technical fields are seeking new jobs because the work environment has become hostile. Wow. Wow. That's interesting. What a great comment. Thank you for that, Kenny. One B that's interesting. You know, I, I totally believe it. I mean, why would they be immune from that? And we're starting to hear about this concern from doctors, uh, Barry Weiss, I think wrote an entire article about this on her sub stack. She left the media, started to sub stack making, you know, making a killing over there. She writes actual good work and she does good journalism. So she's over there. She wrote an article that said that doctors are becoming woke, that this medical met. The medical facade is crumbling because everybody in there is woke now. And there was another article from the ACL. Ooh, there are lawyers. Now who've been, you know, fighting for free speech and first amendment rights and civil liberties since the sixties, 50, 60 seventies. And now they're all looking at the ACLU, which is refusing to fight for free speech for certain people now saying, what the heck is going on here? You know, it's, it's not about free speech anymore. There was an article I was reading this morning. I can't remember the lawyer's name, but you know, he represented Nazis like in the 1970s, like actual Nazis, right. Representing them in court saying, yeah, they're Nazis. Yeah. They, they actually hate all minorities and non white folks that like that, like that's their political position. And they're allowed to say what they want to say and I'm going to represent them in court. Like that's that type of lawyer. Right. Which hats off to the guy, you know, amazing. And now the ACLU was saying, oh no, you know, we're only going to sort of fight for free speech for certain ideologies and certain demographics. And so people who are, you know, civil rights advocates and have been doing so for the last 40 years are scratching their heads saying this is really sad that the institution that really used to stand for something suddenly doesn't anymore. And if that's going to go into our labs, our nuclear laboratories and our medical facilities and our doctors of our doctors have conversations about, you know, your, your depression, uh, your, oh, you're feeling depressed today. Hmm. Well, maybe you should feel less depressed because you've got all your white privileges and depression shouldn't affect you because society has been overly biased against other people, not you. And maybe that'll help your depression by recognizing all of the privileges that you've been afforded all of your life. Right. It's something like that. And you go, that's not medical, it's not clinical. What is, what are we talking about? Oh, all right. LT 13 says I have a big feeling. This is a, don't look over here. Look over there, smokescreen for something else. That's an interesting perspective. So I'm wondering as a followup on that LT, do you mean what is the smokes or do you think the, the lab escape theory is the smokescreen? Hmm. Interesting hack consulting says, I mean, regardless of if it were natural or lab week, COVID still affects my body as if it were any old virus. I guess this top secret report was held up when it wouldn't be given proper care until the time when it stopped being insane. Did the GF riots must be George Floyd writes, forced the report to be scuttled for a year. Yesterday was D-Day by the way, June six. Yeah. It was da was a big day. You know, I was, uh, when I was growing up, I was fascinated by D day. I studied that a lot. I studied the beaches and I used to read those books. I was so fascinated by it. And the idea that people would just, you know, do that. I mean, it was just, it was wild. The whole, the whole thing is a, is a wild, wild story. Uh, it's not a story it's, it's happened. You know, this was one of the most wild operations that I've ever read about anyways, uh, going, you know, you know, those, um, those movies where somebody has a flashback, they sort of zone out and then the movie flashes back. That just happened right there when I was thinking about D-Day all right. So we're going to move on now. All right. So we're going to change gears a long show today. I always get wine wound up on the COVID stuff, but now we're going to talk about the Supreme court. The Supreme court of the United States came out with new orders. They denied some cases from being heard and they accepted some other cases. And we've got some information that we want to unveil about. What's going on. Interesting thing happened. Remember we spoke about this previously that the Supreme court has been doing this interesting sort of ruling type where every ruling has been unanimous nine zero time and time again, we got another one of those today, which is very curious if you recall, we're talking about this in the context of court packing, because remember we're sort of coming out of the last era where the newest addition to the Supreme court is Amy Coney Barrett, Amy Coney Barrett replaced judge Ginsburg, who is no longer with us, of course. And so that switched the balance of power of the court a little bit from six, from five, four to six, three, it was five, four conservative liberal. Now it's six, three conservative, liberal. And so everybody's been going, oh my gosh, we're going to be living under this totalitarian authoritarian, conservative dictatorship of the courts. And suddenly we're all scratching our heads saying that doesn't look like it's happening at all, because we've had a number of unanimous opinions. That means they're all agreeing with each other. So where is this dictatorship? Hmm, well, we're going to find out. So today we learned that the Supreme court will not hear a challenge, male only military draft. So as we know, if you are a man in this country, which is hard to define, I think these days, then we need to make sure that you sign up for the draft. I remember doing this. I think when I got my driver's license or

Speaker 2: 52:04

When I was 18, when I, when I think of when

Speaker 1: 52:06

I first registered to vote, you have to kind of check that box. I remember this many, many, many, many years ago. And so now what this lawsuit is about is saying that there is a violation of equal protection. There is a problem here because we're just imposing the obligation to serve in the armed services on biological males. And that doesn't feel very equal. We spend a lot of time in 2021 talking about equality and about equal rights and inclusion and diversity. So lawsuit comes up, Hey, why are you just picking men? It doesn't seem fair in 2021. What's going on here. So the Supreme court on Monday actually declined to hear the challenge. Oh, so the draft was filed by an organization called the national coalition for men court order means that for now, even though the draft is not implemented, only men will still be required to register for the selective service. We have Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Brier, Brett Kavanaugh, they all wrote to explain their vote, noting that Congress may take up the issue in the short term, right? So we're going to sh we're going to read from this here. It says, at least for now, we're going to defer to the court. So we're going to get to that in a minute. The group that was filing the lawsuit, ask the judges to reconsider a 1981 decision that upheld the military selective service act, which men, but not women are required to register for the draft key to the court's ruling, which was decided by the court made up of all. Men was, it was, uh, his observation that women as a group, unlike men in the group are not eligible for. Okay. Yeah. Cold tweeted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be proud of an effort to challenge one of the last formal sex distinctions under federal law. Referencing the fact that Ginsburg spent her years as a young lawyer, blazing trails in the fight against gender discrimination in court papers. The ACLU argued that male only military draft is unlawful sex discrimination, and that the registration requirement has no legitimate purpose and can not withstand the exacting scrutiny sex based laws required by burning only men and excluding women. The military service act sends a message that women are not vital to the defense of the country. The department of defense lifted the ban on women in combat in 2013. Now a group of retired military officers support the efforts, including Stanley McChrystal. We got Claudia Kennedy, Michael Hayden's, their lawyer, Lindsay Harrison wrote in a friend of the court, brief says, quote, our armed forces draw from the strength of the entire not only it's men. Hmm. So yeah, she added that women graduate from the nation's top service academies. They complete the most challenging combat training programs. We have acting solicitor general Elizabeth per Logar told the justices that because the recommendation is under active consideration in current Congress, any reconsideration of the constitutionality would be premature. All right. So we're going to take a quick look at the opinion itself. This is coming over from judge Soto. My, your, you can see her here and I want to just show you what's going on. So this is the statement of justice Sotomayor. And you'll notice that we had previously said that this case was not accepted into the court. So what happens here is if you recall, you know, the Supreme court has sort of limitations on its jurisdiction and you have to sort of ask in some situations to be admitted to, or to have your case heard by the court. It's called a petition for search you're worried. And what happened here is the lawsuit happened. It sort of worked its way up the courts and it landed on the Supreme court's door. Supreme court reviewed it, sat around with the judges said, should we hear this case? Yes or no. They decided, no, they voted it down. We're not going to hear the case, but on the rejection, the judges still want to say something as to why, right? And judges might want to do that because they want to go on record. They might want to say, Hey, you know, this is an important issue. I think that we should handle this at some point. And I do think that there is worth a, there was a conversation to be had mad about what the legal issue is, but not right now. And they want to explain that away for future, for, for posterity. So let's take a look at what's happening here. Supreme court of the United States, the national coalition for men versus select they've service system on a petition for the rate of service, your worry to the United States is coming out of the fifth circuit. This was decided today, June 7th, 2021, the petition for the writ is denied, right? So many people say, well, why are we breeding it then? Well, because I want to see what the rationale is. So we have Sotomayor, we have justice Briar, and we have cabinet. Hm that's bipartisanship. That's unity there. Wow. Joe Biden vision for America is really coming true. Wonder if he'll not pack the court. Now, since everybody's getting along so nicely, we'll see the fifth amendment to the constitution. This says prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of sex, absent, exceedingly persuasive justification, no sex discrimination, unless you meet this standard, gotta be extremely persuasive. The military service though requires men only men to register for the draft when they turn it[inaudible] the court upheld the ax gender-based registration requirement against an equal protection challenge. Citing the fact that women were excluded from combat roles and hence would not be needed in the event of a draft. So that was from a prior case in Roscoe vs Goldberg. Right? And they're saying that back in that prior case, this case, this old case was decided back in 1981, when they did that, they said, yeah, no, it's fine. You can only have the draft include men because well, women don't have combat roles. So just that's it. You don't, you don't even need to include them because they're not going to serve. And now, so what am I yours says, well, the role of women in the military has changed dramatically since then, beginning of 1991, thousands of women have served with distinction wide range of combat roles. Military aircraft infantry got briefs from another thing we have women have passed the militaries tests. They become army Rangers, Navy seals, green Berets, no longer any positions close to women in the force. Petitioners asked the court to overrule Rostker okay. So this is why this is important because there's an opportunity to overrule a prior case now. So to my work continues, she says petitioners, however are not the only one one's asking whether this case we'll be reconciled today. In 2016, Congress created a commission. That's going to be looking into this. Then on March 25th, 2020, they released its recommendation, which means eliminating the mail only registration. So the court is saying, Congress has already looking into this. In fact, they say just a few months ago, the Senate armed services committee held a hearing on the report where chairman Jack Reed expressed his quote, hope that a gender neutral registration requirement will be incorporated into the next next national defense bill remains to be seen. Of course, whether Congress will end gender based registration under the military selective act, but at least for now the course long standing deference to Congress on matters of national defense and military cautions against granting review. I agree with the court's decision to deny the petition. So Sotomayor is saying, listen, Congress is handling it right now. We've already got a commission that was formed. We already have a report that was drafted March 25th. We already have chairman of Jack Reed from the Senate armed services committee saying, hopefully we can have a gender neutral registration requirement. So we're going to let Congress deal with it before we get involved and start messing around with something that might be moot in the first place. Why would the court accept the case? Spend all this time. Oral arguments, hearing everything come on in here. What's your argument. Congress just goes, oh, we're not going to do that anymore. So they're going to say, we're going to wait for it. Now, the big question women, are you going to be eligible for the draft? Now, you know, I was in college and I forget who it was. I had a friend who was petrified of the draft. This was college. What was that? That must have been Iraq, Afghanistan, that whole era. And I had a friend who was, uh, hung out with, with him, like every weekend, you know, drinking buddies in college. And he was petrified of the draft and there was a democratic Congressman. I forget what his name was. And he was really talking about the draft, like enthusiastic about it at this time. And then he said, no, we should bring it back. You know, we're sending all of, uh, you know, poor people over to Afghanistan and Iraq. So I want the draft so we can send all the rich kids over, along with the poor people. And he was really, I forget who was who he was, but he was really excited about it. And, uh, my friend was just petrified about it. I'd say, Hey, do you hear about that congressmen? Yeah, it's getting close bills, bills working its way through Congress. We're going, we're going baby. Suit up, get ready for it. It was a lot of fun. So obviously that didn't happen, right? We're not in a situation. Thankfully we have a volunteer military where we have people who are brave and they want to make a commitment to their country and go and sacrifice a portion of their life to develop some skills and, you know, sort of contribute to America's interests, domestically and abroad. It's a good, it's a good system. So hopefully we can keep it that way and not mandate the people go and, you know, do things that they do not want to do under conscription from the government. But now what we want to see is whether or not in the interest of diversity and inclusion and 2021, whether or not women also are eligible for the draft and really, you know, this gender neutral gender neutral registration requirement, that means all 77,000 genders might be eligible for the draft, which is a good thing. I think so equality and inclusion. What else did the Supreme court do? Well, they ruled unanimously nine to zero against non-citizens who entered the U S without authorization in the nineties. So, interesting thing is happening here. I do not practice immigration law. It's a whole can of worms. And, you know, we refer that stuff out to people who sort of specialize in that area, but there's, uh, an interesting thing happening here. So what happened back in the nineties is people would come in to the United States under this status. It's called T P S so temporary protected status. And there was a sort of a carve out in our immigration system that said, yeah, you can come in here, it's temporary protected status. And you can just sort of hang out in this temporary status for a period of time. And then we'll decide what to do. There's a process by which when you're in one status in immigration, you can sort of adjust your status, right. Go from sort of somebody who's here. Uh, as a, as a permanent resident into a full citizen, somebody who's here on a, you know, on a visa can maybe apply to sort of work their way up the chain. So you transition from one status to another called adjustment of status. And then here, the question was becoming, or has become if you are somebody who came into the country on TPS. So this temporary protected status, but you've been here for a long period of time and you want to adjust your status. Can you do that and move this into a green card? Can you sort of go from TPS into something that is more, uh, closer to citizenship or permanent residency in the United States? So it's an interesting question, because of course, this is a big question that we're dealing with on the Southern border. Kamala Harris, I think just is down there in Guatemala. So we'll see where that goes. But, uh, this order came out from the Supreme court in planning, English from SCOTUS blog. They say a married couple entered the U S from El Salvador. They're protected from deportation under a program in which the U S doesn't send people back to nations in crisis, the couple applied to become permanent U S residents. SCOTUS says, you don't qualify. Sorry. And it's because it's temporary, right? It's temporary protected status. This is a little bit more about the ruling. All nine judges voted in favor of the, this, this outcome. The decision was written by judge Kagan here. No dissenting opinions. Okay. So we're all in alignment. It's unanimous folks. Everybody's on board with that peace harmony and unity on the Supreme court. I'm just going to need a moment. We have some more information here. Jose Sanchez and Sonya Gonzalez. They came to the U S from El Salvador without authorization in 1990, us government granted them temporary status 2001, designated El Salvador. As part of the TPS program. There were earthquakes in that country. Back in the nineties, under the program, living in the states was permitted to remain here due to unsafe conditions in their home countries, in their home countries, Sanchez, Gonzalez. They maintain status for 20 years during which Sanchez is employers filed an immigration visa petition for Sanchez. As a skilled worker, officials approve the petition said that he could be admitted to the U S as a lawful permanent resident. They simultaneously approved Gonzalez his wife for admission as a lawful permanent resident, the government, however, denied the couple's application to use the adjustment of status process in order to transition from temporary to permanent residency, without leaving the United States. Immigration officials ruled the couple of couples, original unauthorized entry, disqualified them from adjustment of status. The government relied on the text of immigration, which restricts the in country adjustment of status process to non-citizens who were inspected and admitted or into the United States. So they don't get to follow it, right? This is, is, this is sort of what, you know, this is one of those things where, you know, people will read a case like this, and they'll say, well, that stinks. This guy was here for 20 years. And like, he's going to get thrown back or something. I really doubt that that's the case. I, you know, I don't think they're going to say, sorry, you're out of here, buddy boy. But that what they are saying is that this specific maneuver using this, you know, this issue using something, and you came here on TPS status, uh, on a temporary protected status, who is actually not somebody who came here from a foreign country that came in legally and lawfully. Maybe they would be allowed to adjust their status because they came in appropriately on day one. This is not what happened here. These, these individuals came into the country unlawfully without legal status, then applied for TPS, then applied for permanent residency through the visa process. So there are different mechanisms for the people who did not follow that route for the people who came to the country without lawful status. Those are the mechanisms and the procedures that they need to use, not the current one that they try to use. And so what the court is doing is just sort of, you know, taking some of the, I say, you know, teasing out the meatballs from the meat sauce and sort of, you know, separating everything out into their own little nice piles. So we'll see if that has any long lasting consequences. My guess is probably not, because that's probably not a very common situation, but I, again, I don't practice immigration law. So who knows. We next up the Supreme court is adding one new case to its docket for the next term. This is a case about whether the federal government can assert in a state secret privilege to avoid disclosing evidence in a lawsuit. This was brought by Muslims who say they were targeted for surveillance based on their religion. So this is an interesting case. And when the Supreme court says it adds it to its docket for the next term, that means we're going to be hearing about this case. So this case is coming up for oral arguments. Supreme court is going to give us a ruling on this, and this does actually impact criminal law to some extent. So we're talking about state secrets. We've got some more background here from SCOTUS blog. SCOTUS tells us Supreme court on Monday. So it's going to add another case to its list. The court turned down a challenge about the draft. We just read that we have a new case here. Granted, FBI versus[inaudible] what's going on here. The FBI's petition for a review in a case filed against the FBI, uh, and several FBI agents by members of the Muslim community. This is happening out of Southern California, three Muslim men alleged that the FBI targeted them because of their religion, by using a confidential informant, to gather information about Muslims. This was all a part of a counter-terrorism investigation. The dispute now, before the court stems from the government's assertion of the state's secrets privilege, okay. That we don't have to give you any of our information. This is a state secret, all the confidential informant. I'm not going to tell you that was state secret. We're using him for other people. All of the, you know, you got this information, all of it, it's all state secret federal court. After agreeing that the privilege allows the government to withhold evidence saying, you don't have to give that to them, dismiss the claims, but the court of appeals for the ninth circuit reversed, the ruling said, yeah, you got to go given that evidence, hand it over. Yeah. It held at a provision of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, trumps the states secret privilege and gives the district court the power to resolve in private and without requiring all sides to be present the merit of the men's lawsuits. Okay. So we're taught, it's going to be a juicy Supreme court decision. We've got different layers of different privileges. Foreign intelligence surveillance act says that they can keep that stuff or that know that they have to give that stuff out state secrets, and they got to keep it. Supreme court is going to get in here and, uh, unwind all of these different pieces. Let's take some questions, watching the watchers.locals.com. First in the house is from speech unleashed says, I wonder if the SCOTUS releasing all these unanimous opinions is their effort to prevent packing the court. You know, it certainly feels like that. Uh, and I'm, you know, I'm guessing, I'm guessing that there is some accuracy to that, that you know what they're doing here. Remember, we've got some very contentious cases coming up. I think we've got, you know, some, some expected non unanimous opinions coming up pretty soon, dune, you know, Roe vs. Wade is going to be on the docket or on the, on the docket at some point in time. And what it feels like to me is that the Supreme court here is saying, look, we can get along. It's not going to be this totalitarian authoritarian rule by these, you know, really conservative maniacs, which is what people have been saying for sometime that as soon as this, this, this happened, that we were going to see, you know, the banning of all of your freedoms and all sorts of stuff. And that's just not reality, but we'll see if that actually trickles down to the democratic party in their base. Of course they want to see a lot of progress and they define that by adjusting the data this year, he, they already have the white house, the executive, the legislative branch. They have that too. They want the trifecta, they want all three and they're going to get it. If they can help it. We got tiled trout that says are non-binary eligible for the military service elective service. Well, yeah, I think so. I think that it's non, I think it's, if it's gender neutral, I think, I think non-binary is gender neutral. I don't know. It's hard to, it's hard to tell, you know, I saw some people, I think, I think they're, I think pronouns are sort of morphing into like animal creatures. I think, think I saw that on Twitter. I could be wrong about that. I shouldn't talk about that dangerous territory. LT 13 says, did you hear Kamala and her, we are going to build a big, beautiful wall with a big beautiful there for people to come illegally. Oh, Donald Trump legally. Right? Big, beautiful wall, big, beautiful door in it for people to come through legally. Did Kamala say that? I did not hear that. I, uh, I may have been on the show. I know she was traveling down there. I know the plane, you know, had an issue and then now she made it down there. She's going to Guatemala, which okay. Our board, our borders, our heart work farmer's daughter is here in the house. As I went to my therapist today to discuss my concerns and navigate in this world where we, our families are divided, should have no idea what her politics are, but she is woke. And when I told her my concerns about CRT, she told me where she went to school and oppression and racism are real. She told me she couldn't discuss that with me because it was a passion for her. Wow. Hmm. I don't know what to say about that. Uh, you know, that's complicated. How long have you been seeing this therapist? And is anybody saying that racism isn't real? Is that like a thing like oppression and racism are not real? I'm not, I don't, I don't think anybody who is opposed to CRT denies that. I think that racism is a thing and oppression is a thing it's obvious. Just look around the world. Right. It exists. But the question, the question is, what do we do about it? Do we go sort of the MLK route where we talk about people's character and what they do with their lives, or do we just really focus and double down on skin color? Cause I think that's where CRT is going sort of identifying people based on their skin color and then dealing with them. According to that predetermination, which feels very racist to me. I don't know. But I honestly, it sounds like your therapist is setting up a straw man a little bit. You said, Hey, I am concerned about CRT. She says, while oppression and racism are real, I never said that they weren't, but I am concerned about CRT. We're not talking about whether racism and oppression are real or not. Oh gosh. Well, there are a lot of other good therapists out there. And um, uh, gosh, what a mess. Let's this is what I was talking about. Is this why you shared this? Cause we were talking about doctors, maybe going woke and not being able to provide a significant level of service because of their ideology could be trouble. All right. So those questions are all over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all your love and support over there. We're going to change gears last segment of the day before we wrap up outta here to leftover California. We know if you're a second amendment person, if you like firearms, you know that if you've been traveling around this country, technically you're not supposed to bring those with you. When you go into California, at least until today, maybe a federal judge last week overturned California's 32 year assault weapons ban. Now that doesn't mean that it's a free for all in California, but it might be going that way. No, I'm just kidding. It's going to take some time for the effects of this ruling to flush themselves out throughout California. It is a big ship to turn. California has very stringent firearm rights. If you're a second amendment person, there are some pretty amazing apps on your phones that you can actually just download it. And it will show you what the rules are in different states. Every time you go in California, it's like yellow or red. It's terrible. So now we see a federal judge kind of saying enough of this garbage. Okay. The second amendment is a constitutional right. We had the case in Heller from the U S Supreme court. That sort of define that a little bit more clearly for us. And now we're starting to see maybe the tide turn. We got some background from this story here from the New York times written by Mike Ives last week says federal judge overturns 32 year assault weapons ban Friday. There was a, he called it a failed experiment, prompting, a sharp retort from the state's governor. California has prohibited the sale of assault weapons in 1989. The law was challenged in a suit filed in 2019 by the, against the state's attorney general by the, by the plaintiff and the San Diego county gun owners club, the judge, Roger T Benitez. He wrote that the sections of the states penal code defined assault, weapons and restricted, their use are hereby declared unconstitutional and shall be enjoined, right? I'm going to show you what he says here by this. Uh, he's basically giving the government some time to be on notice about this and start implementing the changes. I'm going to show you what he means specifically. But the judge said that he had granted a 30 day stay of the ruling at the request of the attorney general a move that would allow Mr. Bonta to appeal it. So, as I said before, you know, before we go crazy here and you know, doing cartwheels in the streets with your AR fifteens, keep in mind that this is, you know, this is appealable and the legislature is going to respond and California is look, they've been depriving you of your second amendment rights for 32 years. They're going to try to extend that as long as they can. So hold tight AR 15, re-entered the American market in 2004, after the end of the federal assault weapons ban has a national following among gun owners also been used in mass shootings, Newsome worst governor in America wrote that comparing the gun to a Swiss army knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families. Who've lost, loved ones to this weapon and a separate statement. Bonta called judge Benitez decision, fundamentally flawed, vowed to appeal at which of course they will. He says that there is no sound basis in law, in fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with Swiss army knives, especially on gun violence awareness day, uh, after the recent shootings in our own California communities, gun activists celebrated. Yeah, they should. I wonder if that judge did that intentionally, did he do that intentionally? Do you think releases this opinion on gun violence awareness day? I didn't even know that was a thing. I don't know if he knew that that was a thing or not, but if he did, oh man, that is great. Brandon Combs, the president of the firearms policy coalition, a group in Sacramento that helped to bring the lawsuit said that the ruling held what millions of Americans already know to be true bands on so-called assault. Weapons are unconstitutional and cannot stand Gottlieb founder of the second amendment foundation. Another group that was involved said this statement, the judge's ruling had quote, shredded California gun control laws regarding modern semi-automatic rifle. He said it is clear. The judge did his homework on this ruling. Benitez was appointed district judge 2003 in 2017. I remember this guy. I remember reading about him, blocked a new California law that would have banned the magazine more than 10 rounds. Three judge panel upheld his ruling last year. But the appeals court said that the 11, yeah, we talked about him previously. I think that's right. That's where this was. So judge Benitez, who we're going to see here in a minute, I actually think he was in the, uh, he was on the thumbnail on the video. We've talked about him before he's been involved in prior gun cases. 10 round magazine was a limit the California in post. He threw that out. Now there was a, the ninth circuit also threw that out and they're going to reappeal it to the full panel. Some critics of the judge's latest ruling. It says it was handed down on the national gun violence awareness day. The ruling is alarming and wrong said somebody else. It's an insult to the families across the nation. Here is a copy of the order. Here's the decision I want to show you this introduction. Okay. One of the more epic introductions that you'll see in legal writing, it says like the Swiss army knife, the popular AR 15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and Homeland defense weapon. No, he says Homeland defense equipment, right? Good for both home and battle. The AR 15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under Heller. Yet the state of California makes it a crime to have an AR 15 type rifle. Therefore the court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional. Oh my gosh. That's so great. Plaintiffs challenge. A net of interlocking statutes that imposed strict criminal restrictions, complex definition of what a assault weapon means. Second amendment quote elevates above all other interests, the right of law abiding responsible citizens to use arms in the of hearth and home. This comes from Heller. Supreme court holds that the second amendment protects guns, commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, the second amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. And although the Supreme court caution, the second moment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever. There is no evidence that the Supreme court intended that language to be a licensed, to avoid its common sense. Holding in average contexts, this case is not about extraordinary weapons, lying at the outer limits of second amendment protection. The ban assault weapons are not bazookas howitzers or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed assault weapons are fairly ordinary popular modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns. Use an average ways for average purposes. One is to be forgiven. If one is not persuaded by the news media and others, that the nation is a wash with murderous AR 15 white rifles, the facts, however, do not support this hyperbole facts matter. They say FBI murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle in California. Murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder than rifle. For example, according to FBI in 2019, California saw 252 people murder with a knife. While 34 people were killed with some type of rifle, not necessarily an AR 15 California is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker's bare hands, fists or feet than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided is California only saw 24 murders by some type of rifle. Same pattern can be observed across the nation, which is interesting because if you've been somebody following this channel, you know, that we talk about the different levels of scrutiny. In other words, if the government is going to pass a law that imposes some burden on you and it imposes that burden on a fundamental constitutional right there better be a good reason for doing that in this case, if they're going to be imposing on your right to keep and bear arms something that is in the second amendment, it is the second amendment. And it's been very, very clearly defined by the Supreme court recently in the case of Heller, if they're going to impugn that, right, that fundamental constitutional, right. If they're going to try to take that away from you, there better be a good justification for it. The justification that assault weapons or some sort of dangerous menace to society is not accurate. The judge just went through, gave you the data from California, his own numbers. So what is the justification then, if they're really concerned about the loss of life, maybe they should deal with handguns. Maybe they should deal with knives, which are way bigger in terms of loss of life than rifles are. But it's not about that. As we know, it's about a political movement, not about data plaintiffs, they challenge all of these different codes. Look at this. We've got 30 look at all these different, we've got a 3,800 assault weapons restricting. It's not even going to read it. It is declared that these statutes on constant suit unconstitutionally infringe upon these rights. Judge says here in line 13, you might not know it, but this case is about what should be a muscular constitutional right? And whether the state can force a gun policy choice that impinges on that, right with a 30 year old failed experiment, love that muscular guns, baby. It should be an easy question. And answer. Government is not free to impose its own a new policy on choices of American citizens where constitutional rights are concerned. Heller explains the second amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of permissible state action. The state doesn't have the authority to act on those things. California may certainly conceive of a policy that a modern rifle is dangerous in the hands of a criminal. And it is therefore a good public policy to keep modern rifles out of the hands of every citizen. The second amendment though stands as a shield from the government imposition of that policy. And that's exactly why we have it, right. That's why it's the second amendment, not 27. It's number two. There is only one policy in shrine in the bill of rights, guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous guns in the hands of law. Abiding responsible citizens are better to give full life to the core, right? Of self-defense every law abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms, commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes in early America. And today the second amendment, right of self-preservation permits a citizen to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf, maybe too late to prevent that injury. Then as now, second amendment may be considered a true palladium of Liberty. Fortunately, government tends to restrict the right of self-defense. The court does not lightly enjoy a state statute. However, while the court is mindful that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the constitution remains a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Something Alexis de Tocqueville wrote as Senator Kennedy said, that judiciary is, and often the only protector of individual rights that are at the heart of democracy, law, abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable, right? To keep and bear modern firearms.

Speaker 3: 1:25:00

Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: 1:25:02

Love that. That was really good. You know, slow it. All right. So temporary stay. What does he want here? The attorney general asked for a stay of the injunction pending the appeal. So as we heard, he said, okay, this is enjoined. All of these statutes, they're all garbage. Second amendment is, is more important than all of your other justifications for trying to impinge upon that rights. But he also makes note, we're going to temporarily just stay this thing. Okay. So I'm, I'm going to order this, but we're going to hold it because the attorney general has a lot of work to do, and he does no question about it. So of course, he's going to appeal it, take it up to the ninth circuit and we'll see what they do with it here. We're wrapping up. It says the defendant attorney general, Rob Bonta. They have to do all of this stuff. Let's see here. They have to, and those inactive concert in participation with him and those duly sworn who gained knowledge of this injunction order or who know of the existence of this order, they are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing California penal code. Any of, okay, can't you can't enforce any of these laws anymore is what this judge is saying. Can't enforce any of this stuff. Uh, defining an assault weapon doesn't matter. Assault weapons obtained by bequest or inheritance. Doesn't matter if you want to inherit your, your AR 15, no problem restricting the importation of those assault weapons by new residents. Nope. Not at all. Move to California order an AR restricting use of those registered assault weapons. Nope, no, no, no. Don't have to worry about that. Right? Whatever that law is, prohibited, prohibiting the possession of assault weapons by minors also gone. The defendant attorney general shall permit within 10 days, the government issue a declaration establishing proof of the notice. So they have to basically post notice of this. They've got to notify everybody. Pay. Tell your people, your attorney, your chief of police, your prosecutor, your district attorney, tell your staff, tell your people the court has spoken. Love it. Mm disgusting. Slap in the faces, California, governor Newsome, right? Fred gluten Berg is a father of, one of the pupils killed at the Florida high school. In 2018, told CNN people are going to die because of this ruling, except for the loss of my daughter for all the other victims. Okay. Uh, comparing an AR 15 to a Swiss army knife is a disgusting slap in the face. As Newsome. He issued a statement on Friday, said that a district judge in San Diego was appointed by Bush. He was unlawfully depriving law, abiding Califor of there. Right? It's all right. So the rest of this is pretty standard stuff. I want to show you what's going on with gun purchases, by the way. So zero hedge over here, it says, gunstocks get a bump after California. Judge overturns the assault weapons ban background checks break new record. So I'm pretty sure that the gun control argument is kind of over. I think, I think, I mean, they're still going to try, but even, you know, beta beta, he's not even around anymore. He's still around. But that whole member, that was his whole campaign, gun violence. He's going to be, you know, the, the gun grabber of America, but we have Heller. Now we've got most of the courts where I think are coming on board now saying, look enough of this stuff. It doesn't work. It's it's garbage. And politically the American people are, they're just buying guns all day. So nobody that's not slowing down at all shares in firearm related stocks, they nudge higher on Monday. Federal judge overturned that case. We just talked about that Vista outdoor American outdoor brands, ammo, Inc Sturm, Ruger Smith and Western Claris. They all saw gains in early trading S and P was down today, but they're all moving up. So people are buying, buying firearms and the stock market is responding. Positive action in firearms also follows a Friday report that FBI background checks hit nearly 4.7 million in the month of March. The most deaths since records began 20 years ago. And it's not even a little bit, it's a 70 per 7% increase. Okay. Massive accessories, blogs. Everybody's backlog. I don't know if you've been to a gun store lately. You try to find ammo lately. It's just not around. According to CNN, a record number of those purchasing guns are first buyers. That's right, baby. We've also seen in times of civil unrest that we see people go out and they say that they need to protect themselves. Yep. Says Jack McDevitt. So they are going to buy guns to protect themselves. The only question is will they learn to use them? I hope so. I hope so. You can get, get a lot of, get a lot of return on your time with a simple firearms course. And uh, I'll, I'll tell you. Yeah. I mean it's um, well, I've shared that story before. Let me show you what the graph looks like. FBI firearm background checks monthly going up 2007 down here, right around about a million we're up to here 2021 that baby we got, we're talking over four and a half million background checks month of may alone, relative REL the comparison between months. So may, May, 2020. We had 3 million May, 2021, 3.2 million. And in 2019 2.3 million. So we jumped up about 650,000 new background registrations in 2020 versus 2019, the steady clip. What happened and what happened here? Oh yeah, it was the summer of unrest. Remember that happened here in Arizona. We had hooligans running around Scottsdale road, right there happen all over Minneapolis and everywhere around the country. Portland in Seattle, people started to say, huh, kind of don't want that happen. My business looks like the cops aren't around. Maybe it's time to make sure that I tech myself by her firearm. Good move. Okay. Let's take a look@someofthequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. If you want to support the show, you can go to this address. It's watching the watchers.locals.com. We're also on rumble. We also have several new channels down in the description below that I would love to invite you to check those out. Question. Number one, here is from John Goulart says justice. Roberts is not a conservatives. Quit counting him as one. Everything Bush touched, turned to shirt and Roberts is a great reminder of his disastrous presidency for Republicans. He has an embarrassment. Yeah. I, you know, you're right. I you're actually right. I actually, I do categorize judge Roberts as a conservative because he was, you know, he's kind of middle of the road there. Candidly. I think judge Roberts is a lot more interested in the legacy of the courts and the public perception of the court as the chief justice. So I don't think he's really a liberal or conservative. Honestly. I think he's somebody more interested in the public perception of the court and the legitimacy of the court and how it acts as an institution in society, more so than he is any particular policy outcome. And I mean that, I mean, he doesn't abortion. He's got a, he's got an opinion on it, right? Gun rights, all of these, he's got opinions on those things and he'll try to work those in, but not at the expense of any thing that would jeopardize the institution. And we saw this with what he did back during Obamacare. Remember when that case hit the Supreme court, he allowed it to go through cause he categorized it as a tax, awful, uh, legal justification. In my opinion, does John Roberts know that one of the smartest legal minds in the history of the world? Yeah. He knows that. So why did he do it that way? And he knows it's a garbage argument. He knows that it's not right. He knows that it just got straight. He knows all of that. Why did he make that decision to protect the court? We have a new president who just got swept into power. This is his first big domestic policy achievement on the back of a lot of political momentum to have the Supreme court come out and throw that case out. Wasn't going to do that. So we had to find a way to make it work more interested in the institution than he is the outcomes. And a lot of people don't like that myself included, you know, you have a, you have a job to do I understand protecting an institution, but we didn't put you in there to protect the institution. You know, you got the nomination to rule on cases. As my opinion, hack consulting says how many people have died to Swiss army knives? How dare governor Newsome minimize the trauma being hacked to death or corkscrewed just because they didn't quickly die from a gunshot wound. Recall Newsome. It's a good point there. Heck yeah. Yeah. Why doesn't he go after those knives? Hack says the second amendment here has no fringe cases. Does it? Why would a citizen have a Howitzer? Why would we want that? Well, if surplus military equipment were sold to private individuals to own and maintain during peacetime, the military could serve their capacity by renting, leasing, those surplus equipment later also private citizens are more able to figure out experimental upgrades to our military and argue for better fixes in the military kin. So I ha I think what I gathered from that comment is that you want to buy a Howitzer, which I don't have any arguments there. I would also like to have a Howitzer one day, maybe we'll have a Howitzer together and we'll go shoot it. The chairman of the board says, is there an actual legal definition anywhere of assault rifle? Um, yeah, it's a V it's a firearm. That's very offensive. And sometimes places you in immediate apprehension of imminent offensive contact, that's the definition of assault, the imminent. So this is the old common law definition of assault placing another individual in a reasonable apprehension of imminent offensive contact. I think that's the tortious definition from the restatement. If I correct that I could be totally wrong on this. So the, the assault rifle would be any person or, or, or, uh, any action that puts any individual in reasonable apprehension of imminent offensive contact with a gun. That's the legal definition, according to yours? Uh, he says, no, honestly, chairman of the board, I don't know if there is, there probably are many attempts to define that, but it's a stupid definition. Uh, PS acute dog contest is broken out in the live comments over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. That's right. Cute dog contests. Oh my gosh. Chairman of the board, probably leading the way on these cute dogs. If you want to be a part of that, got to get over there@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. And thank you chairman for helping me plug that show. All right, let's take a look. We've got a big one over here from E Don test says, Rob, get this. A friend was in Mexico, along with his wife and friend in the friend's truck, which had a lockbox fixed to the truck that had a pistol in it. My friend and wife had no idea there was any lockbox or gun. They crossed the border. The Mexican federal rallies pulled them over. They had to spend nine days in Mexican prison. Oh my gosh. They had to pay all kinds of fines and what really equates to ransom money. The other person is still in prison in Mexico. Oh my gosh. Moral of the story. Don't take any weapon in New Mexico, even if it's in a lockbox and you think it's no big deal also. That's good advice. Also, the difference in the freedoms we have here in America is so much better than many countries in the world. My friend said he isn't ever going anywhere, going near anyone who is going to bad mouth America. He is attacking them, hopefully by decking. You mean, you know, handing them out a deck of cards and saying let's play solitaire together. Right. Peacefully. So, uh, yeah. Uh, yeah, it's look, I come on this channel and w and we beat up on the government a lot here, but we have a pretty good country. Not because of the government. Okay. It's because of the principles that we, as a citizenry have established here, and we hold the line every time they try to encroach upon them. That's why it's a great place. It's not because of the government because of the principles. And it's because of the people that implement and demand that those principles be maintained. And otherwise it's, you know, it's, it's, it's a quick into a country that just washes those civil liberties right down the toilet. I don't want to live in that country. We have hack consulting says if we cannot trust our public health officials to not cover up their failures, even at the great cost of lives loss, then how can we trust the designation of mental illness by these same type of things, experts or anything? They say really, perhaps the issue people's rights are violated all over of something truly wrong. The patient's head, the second amendment says shall not be infringed. So why is mental illness allowed as a disqualifier? I see what you're saying. If the person is truly insane, why do we keep them alive? If someone is getting money for the hopeless, correct. The second amendment, the person is truly insane. Why do we keep them alive? Oh my goodness. Well, it's because they're humans, you know, and maybe they can become not insane anymore and we can help them through it. And just because somebody might be, uh, you know, not well doesn't mean that their life is meaningless. Yeah. So, uh, it's a good question. Thank you for that hack. We have Slayer here says second amendment two eight says arms. The knife is exactly the same thing by letter of the writing. It says arms, the knife is exactly the same thing by the letter of the writing. So second amendment has arms. When the amendment was written, the ascendant, the citizens had everything included cannons and warships. All the weapons were predominantly in the possession of the citizens. That's a good, that's a great point, right? It's like, you know, I don't, I don't know. Did Washington, did Franklin, did Jefferson, did Adams, did anybody back there? You know what? Maybe they had a cannon. Can we have a cannon or the modern equivalent of a cannon? I'm gaining for that. All right. Great questions, everybody. That was a good show. Thank you so much for lobbying all those questions in. And all of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. I want to welcome the new people who signed up here today and are supporting us and joining the great community. Welcome big, welcome to Sparrow 61. Welcome to the community Furby Slayer software. Be in the house today. Got a question from Furby. Welcome. We have Harleen Quinzel now Harley Harley quiz. Quinzel welcome to the community. Uh, very happy to have you here. We have V bittersweet is here. We have Julie girl, Vee, bittersweet, maybe very bittersweet, Julie girls in the house and tech one 30. Welcome to the community as well. Love all of you. Thank you so much for your support. I really do mean that great questions came in from all of you here on the board today. Thank you so much for those. And if you didn't participate in the show and you'll want to, you can sign up@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com so that you can ask questions, but there's a lot of other stuff you can get as well. Like a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning. It's available as a PDF free to download for free. We also have a copy of the slides that are also available for you. You can go and download everything we went through today can download a copy of my impeachment party documents or my personal productivity system. It's called existence systems. We share links throughout the day. We have great people. There are a lot of great people. And in fact, I actually am thinking about trying to maybe do a weekend show. So yesterday at watching the Watchers dot local's dot com, I posted a Sunday, shout out, went through some of the comments and it's about 15 minutes. And so, so I posted that for supporters only if you want to get some of that sort of lower key, let you know, let your hair down a little bit. It's Sunday, Hey nights, don't have PowerPoints kind of thing. I'm going to try to do more of that over at locals. And so you can check that out. If you want to go there and be a part of that, you can also join us for our next monthly meetup, which is going to be happening via zoom. June 26th is the next one. Again, this is free for everybody@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com also free our law enforcement interaction, training seminars coming up this weekend. Oh my goodness. Saturday, June 12th at 12 Eastern, that'd be about 20 minutes, maybe two hours. We're going to talk about how to deal with law enforcement. So I'm going to get the registration probably posted tonight. I can't word at the time go, oh my goodness. So I'm going to post that over at, uh, at locals tonight, maybe tomorrow, and if want to be a part of that, we'll have it pinned to the top. You can register, and then we'll look forward to seeing you on Saturday. Lastly, before we get out of here, I am a criminal defense attorney. I know I don't plug that too much throughout the show, but that's really what we do on a daily basis. Got a whole team of people here in Scottsdale that are absolutely passionate about helping good people facing criminal charges, find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases and their lives. And so if you know anybody in the state of Arizona and is facing criminal charges, we would love the opportunity to help. And I mean, whether it is a misdemeanor case or a felony case or a traffic violation, or it's an old case, we can help. We help people with DUIs, domestic violence, drug offenses, some of the disorderly conduct things, things you see in old town or sixth street or whatever that is in your town. A lot of people are out there, you know, sort of getting, getting, uh, uh, emerging from the COVID cocoon. And sometimes, you know, law enforcement will just round everybody up and charge them with crimes. And so if you need help or, you know, somebody that needs help, we would love the opportunity to be able to provide that for them. If they are in the state of Arizona, we offer free case evaluations. And as I mentioned, we are just, we'd love to help people find safety, clarity, and hope in their cases, and then hopefully their lives. So if you have any referrals, we would be humbled and honored. If you sent them our way. Otherwise my friends we're going to be right back here. Same time, same place tomorrow. It's going to be at 4:00 PM. Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast for that one, Florida man, not Georgia woman, but Florida man out there. Everybody have a tremendous evening. I will see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.