Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Biden G7 Trip Review, Houston Hospital Vaccine Lawsuit, Missouri Second Amendment Preservation

June 15, 2021
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Biden G7 Trip Review, Houston Hospital Vaccine Lawsuit, Missouri Second Amendment Preservation
Chapters
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Biden G7 Trip Review, Houston Hospital Vaccine Lawsuit, Missouri Second Amendment Preservation
Jun 15, 2021

Biden wraps up his G7 trip and we review the highlights. Houston nurse loses lawsuit against her employer hospital over mandatory covid vaccination requirement. Missouri Governor signs new bill into law establishing Second Amendment preservation in the state.​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Biden wraps up his first foreign trip with the Group of Seven and we review the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY.​
🔵 The GOOD: China is a major topic of concern with Biden and other world leaders.​
🔵 The BAD: Biden and the rest of the G7 agree on a “Global Minimum Tax” to spread around the world.​
🔵 The UGLY: Watching Biden Speak (various clips)​
🔵 WATCH: Biden confuses Libya and Syria (we review a map)​
🔵 WATCH: Biden follows a script.​
🔵 WATCH: Biden reminds Boris Johnson to do something he already did.​
🔵 A lawsuit filed against a Houston Hospital challenging mandatory covid-19 vaccination is dismissed.​
🔵 The case, Jennifer Bridges et. al, vs. Houston Methodist Hospital, was dismissed on June 12, 2021 by order of the Court signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes out of the United States District Court.​
🔵 The Judge ruled that the hospital’s new policy is consistent with public policy. ​
🔵 Review of the Order of Dismissal entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.​
🔵 Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed House Bill 85 in law in Missouri, passing “The Second Amendment Preservation Act.”​
🔵 Governor Parson, a former law enforcement officer, proclaims the law empowers Missouri to reject encroachments by the federal government on the right to keep and bear arms.​
🔵 Review of House Bill 85, the Bill Summary and Governor’s signing.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

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/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

WATCH ON RUMBLE:​

🟡 MAIN: https://rumble.com

Show Notes Transcript

Biden wraps up his G7 trip and we review the highlights. Houston nurse loses lawsuit against her employer hospital over mandatory covid vaccination requirement. Missouri Governor signs new bill into law establishing Second Amendment preservation in the state.​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Biden wraps up his first foreign trip with the Group of Seven and we review the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY.​
🔵 The GOOD: China is a major topic of concern with Biden and other world leaders.​
🔵 The BAD: Biden and the rest of the G7 agree on a “Global Minimum Tax” to spread around the world.​
🔵 The UGLY: Watching Biden Speak (various clips)​
🔵 WATCH: Biden confuses Libya and Syria (we review a map)​
🔵 WATCH: Biden follows a script.​
🔵 WATCH: Biden reminds Boris Johnson to do something he already did.​
🔵 A lawsuit filed against a Houston Hospital challenging mandatory covid-19 vaccination is dismissed.​
🔵 The case, Jennifer Bridges et. al, vs. Houston Methodist Hospital, was dismissed on June 12, 2021 by order of the Court signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes out of the United States District Court.​
🔵 The Judge ruled that the hospital’s new policy is consistent with public policy. ​
🔵 Review of the Order of Dismissal entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.​
🔵 Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed House Bill 85 in law in Missouri, passing “The Second Amendment Preservation Act.”​
🔵 Governor Parson, a former law enforcement officer, proclaims the law empowers Missouri to reject encroachments by the federal government on the right to keep and bear arms.​
🔵 Review of House Bill 85, the Bill Summary and Governor’s signing.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

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/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

Otherwise, don't forget to join us on Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

Why Locals? We head over to Locals to continue the conversation before, during and after the show. You can also grab the slides (and other stuff) from the show as well as a free PDF copy of Robert’s book which is also available to buy on Amazon here: https://rcl.ink/hHB​

WATCH ON RUMBLE:​

🟡 MAIN: https://rumble.com

Speaker 1:

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've got a lot to get into. We're going to be starting off by talking about the G seven trip. Joe Biden had taken some time to go over to Europe and bounce around the world for a little bit. And now we're coming to the close of the first part of that trip. Now he's still hanging out over there talking to NATO, and we're going to have some more to talk about that story tomorrow. But over the weekend, we got some clips from what happened at the G seven summit. This is a big summit. There's a lot of big Western nations there, places like Canada, France, Germany, Italy. And so for the next segment, we're going to be talking about the good, the bad and the ugly that came out of the G seven summit. And so we've got a lot to get to there. Then there's a new situation that's happening out of Houston. There was a lawsuit that was filed by a nurse and some other medical professionals against their employer, which was the Houston Methodist hospital over mandatory vaccinations. These were nurses working at a hospital. They did not want to get vaccinated. The hospital said you have to get vaccinated. They filed a lawsuit and the judge today dismiss their lawsuit. They have no claim. The judge said, so we're going to go through that lawsuit and see what that looks like. We're also going to take a look at what is happening out of Missouri. We've been doing this on this channel for some time, kind of bouncing around the different states and watching how they are responding to what I have been characterizing as a grossly bureaucratic overpowering government that we've been seeing sort of all around our country and our different states. And so the states are starting to push back a little bit and Missouri is joining the fray. They just signed a new bill into law called house bill 85, entitled the second amendment preservation act. So they are pushing back on any attempts at regulation of the second amendment by the federal government. They're basically saying that Missouri is Supreme to the federal law on firearms. We're going to see how that works out for them . So we've got a lot to get into, want to invite you to be a part of the show. If you want to do that, you can go over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is a separate community that we have separate and apart from Facebook or from YouTube or from Instagram, it's where we kind of hang out and do things together. So I would invite you to go on over there, watching the watchers.locals.com by way of example, on Saturday, we just had our very first law enforcement interaction training, which I thought went very well. I thought it was a lot of fun and we had a good showing there almost 40 people. We had a former police officer who was on there. And so it was a lot of fun and that was available for all of our locals members. And if you want to buy that, if you're not a local subscriber over there, you want to buy that. You can see that and purchase it at gumroad.com/robert ruler . The link is down in the description below, but if you want to be a part of this show, go to watching the watchers.locals.com . And you can ask a question as we're going through the slides, question, comment, criticisms, it's the best place to be a part of the program. And we want you to do that. So head on over to watching the watchers.locals.com. All right , so let's get into the news of the day, the G seven a global event that took place between a lot of the countries that we hear about regularly. Places like Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK. And of course the United States, Joe Biden, our president picked up, went over there and hung out with a bunch of these other world leaders. And we've got some highlights or you can call them some lowlights , but we're going to go through this in a way that is a little bit. Now I want him to try to be somewhat fair here. I know that that may be a stretch, but we're going to do our best. I want to look at the good, the bad and the ugly of what happened at the last G seven over the last couple of days. And so there is some good stuff that came about from this entire event. But before we dive into the meat and potatoes here, let's take a quick look and understand what is the group of seven? What was this all about? Kind of happens regularly. We see it . Trump went over there, something that happens often. And , uh , what is it? Let's take a quick look from Wikipedia and I'm going to make a quick adjustment to my screen here. All right . So what we see here is from Wikipedia. We have the group of seven. They're telling us that this is an inter-governmental political forum consisting of the countries. I already mentioned it . Its members are the world's largest IMF, advanced economy . So the international monetary fund, we've been talking a lot about money and inflation and cryptocurrencies got a channel down below. If you want to join that one, but the IMF, the international monetary fund. So we get to join the club now because of, of our, our monetary system. It is the wealthiest liberal democracies that we have. The group is efficiently organized, and they share values of pluralism and representative government. Now as of 2018, that says that it accounts for close to 60% of the global net wealth, 30 to 46% of global GDP, and then 770 million people are part of this organization that are represented by these leaders. So something like 10% of the world's population. So it's a big organization. A lot of powerful countries are there and there is something that's they do that well, let's say they , they, they, they do this just like other leaders. Do they enact a double standards? Okay. So what they're doing at the G seven is , uh , following double standards. Now they've been telling us for the last year, all of 2020 social distancing, there are still, there are still some countries and on this list that have some pretty draconian COVID policies still in place, right? Canada, if you follow fellow YouTuber, Viva fry over on his channel, the V you know , Veeva barns at locals, they're over there as well. VBA is up in Canada and he does these Viva on the street videos. And in Canada, there's all sorts of very problematic things happening there, right? You sort of find, if you go out, I think one of their politicians just got arrested. Like the actual government is arresting opposition party politicians for COVID violations. And so this is a liberal democracy, according to the G seven, this is something that we, a nation that sort of embodies and likes to practice free speech and allowing your political opponents to sort of voice their opposition, ideally. And something is happening in Canada, right? And we've been making the same arguments here in the United States when they start mandating that you do certain things that becomes a problem that is sort of , uh , an antithetical to freedom. And we all start taking issues with that. So when you go over to the G seven, now they've been over the last 12 months or so enacting sort of their draconian policies on the rest of us, got to where this, put this over your face, got to go and show it in the , lock this down and do this, all these different things. And when they go over to the summit, they play by a different set of rules. So one rule for them rules for the, but not for me. This is from the daily mail world leaders, world leaders have been accused of double standards after ignoring social distancing to hug. And backslap during the G seven summit. So this is over from the daily mail. And you'll notice right at 1,100 comments, quite a lot of activity on this article, Joe Biden, Boris Johnson and others, they were photographed in close contact world leaders. They were at a beach, barbecue prompted social media backlash. Some users asked why politicians were allowed to socialize without strict regulations that were placed on people like guests, like a weddings at funerals. Right? So let's take a quick look at some of these images. So in front of the public, when they're taking a photograph here, you got, you know , the old elbow bump, the old thumbs up over here from Joe thumbs up over here from , uh , Boris Johnson. It's like, you know, it's like, they're , they're all getting together. And just sort of having fun, right on Thursday Biden and Johnson, bumped elbows, and a socially distanced photo, but they were snapped with Biden hands Biden's hand on Johnson shoulder during an 80 minute meeting at carpus bay. Right. And so, you know, most of this, you go, oh, right there , they're elected leaders who cares. And so they have to sort of have this public facing persona and they have to do this stuff in front of the cameras, but we know really behind the scenes that they, that they do stuff while like this, they actually go and go to these little events. Here's a barbecue where they're all doing their social distancing BS. But then at the summit, Robert Peston over on Twitter takes a shot of this and they're all hanging out together. Right. I think this is actually , uh, uh , what's his , uh , Trudeau from Canada, right. Just try it out for Canada. So Veeva is up in Canada being, you know, a borderline locked down under the, you know , Gestapo up there. And we have the actual leader of Canada. Who's just sort of yucking it up at barbecues . So that's very nice. Then here they are, again, right here. I think looking at something, honestly, folks it's like, it's kind of like prom for like the bureaucrats, like bureaucratic prom. They're all gonna get together and, you know , have a drink, have a cocktail, talk about how they're going to just continue to tax the world here. They are just having a great time looking up in the air. What are they looking at? Red arrow, those fly over on Saturday. So their spouses are enjoying this red arrows , uh, fly over on Saturday. It must be some sort of, you know , uh , military something in , in , uh, wherever they're at. So that's going on now, goofy lot of goofiness happening , happening here. A lot of goofy, just kind of, you know, bureaucrats just kind of bumping into each other. So there is some good news that came out of this though. So let's start there. We're going to go good, bad and ugly. We're going to start with the good stuff first. This is what I liked when I was poking around following along this week . Well, number one, this is coming from NATO today, right? But this is still something that is a carry over from the G seven summit. So we're going to be talking about NATO in this, in this clip, but just keep in mind that this was also being discussed back during the G seven. So China came up a lot. China, China, China, China's rising military ambitions are presenting NATO with challenges that must be addressed. They said the 30 nation Western Alliance set on Monday. So that was today. This is sort of the extension of the [inaudible] . The description of China contain in a communique issued at the conclusion of a one day summit that was attended by president Biden and others reflected a new concern over how China intends to willed wield its military might in the coming years, Biden has made dealing with authoritarian powers, a keynote of his, of his talks. He was their president, Donald Trump put more emphasis on the threats to China NATO today. The secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said the China's military budget is second in the world only to that of the United States. And that China is rapidly building its military forces. They're talking about a multifaceted threat and the, the, the, the promises from NATO to engage with China with a view of defending security interests of the Alliance. So separately NATO's have said, NATO has said that the China is increasingly using Arctic routes and is exercised its military with Russia, sending shifts to the Mediterranean sea. It's been active in Africa. They're also working on space-based weaponry, as well as artificial intelligence and sophisticated hacking of Western institutions. And theoretically, they could be engaging in bio weaponry as well. Right? We all know that story. So what's happening here. We've been talking a lot about these situations , uh , on this channel, we talked previously about these so-called fishing boats that were floating around the seas over by the Navy's version of area 51. We talked about that story. The, you know , the U S government has area 51, the U S Navy has a version of that. They call it whatever they call it, but it's like area 51 in the, in the sea . And they have this little, very special sort of , uh, they call it tongue in the sea that looks like somebody just slurped, a big gaping void out of the sea, and they can test some Marines down there. So that is something that we we've been the , the Chinese have been sending these fishing ships that seem like they're kind of souped up with a lot of surveillance gear floating around that area over by. I think it was, that was in The Bahamas. So that's going on? We know that the Chinese just landed. I think a drone or , um , uh, uh , uh, uh, ship down on Mars. We know that they are very actively involved in, you know , burgeoning up their , their military. They've been talking about that. We talked about previously the movement towards creating these, these super computers and these super nuclear fission reactors that can get stuff to, you know, sort of the highest temperature that we've ever seen on the world. So a lot of technical superiority NATO is talking about it. The G seven , they talked a lot about it, all, very good stuff. Now, this is another article here from New York post. They said NATO is still going to be branding China security risk, despite Beijing's cries of slander at the G seven. So, as I mentioned, China came up a lot at the G seven. So here today, a day after the meeting of the nations at the seven bide met with NATO, talking about the sacred obligation of American military Alliance, and then saying that they're going to brand China, a security risk to the Western nations, right? So that's good news. I think that that is absolutely appropriate that China based on what we have seen for the last year or so 18 months, almost two years now has been a lot of a lack of transparency, almost zero accountability from anything that was taking place with Wu Han lab of virology. So we've got a lot to sort of unravel there. And I think, you know , quite candidly, Trump was ahead of the curve on this thing. So Biden is now talking about it. The NATO nations are talking about it. They were talking about it at the G seven allied leaders are raising concerns also about Russia's military buildup near the Ukraine. Stoltenberg described the summit as a pivotal moment. So they're talking about China's growing military and the presence from the Baltics to Africa, and is an indication that NATO had to be prepared to stand up for Western security and democratic values. Warning China is coming closer to us. They say , we see them in cyberspace. We see China in Africa. We see China investing heavily in our own critical infrastructure. He said a reference to ports and telecoms. We need to respond together as an Alliance attendees at NATO, they kicked off with a family photo, goofy people. The photo was staged near a three story. High Biden arrived . He took position in the center, the leaders then turn to the monolift to watch a presentation. So they're just, you know, they're just, it's prom . They're , they're having a good time. They're going to pin the core set on each the other , you know, Putin and bind here. Here you go. Ah , all right . So let's see what else is happening here? China's embassy in London said it was resolutely opposed to mentions of Zhang yang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, which had a distorted facts. China's reputation must not be slandered said the embassy, despite Biden's assurances that the U S is fully committed to the alliances is expected to get some pushback. It says it's a European official told Politico. It's not a surprise that you've seen some countries express pretty straightforwardly their dissatisfaction with the way things were done. This is another example of one of the issues where within NATO, we should be more substantially discussing and consulting with one another before making decisions . So let's take a look. Biden is scheduled to meet with Airtel one later in the day. We'll see if we have some stories from that now in an interview with NBC news, Putin dismissed the military buildup near the Ukraine. So pay attention to some of these, these countries, these nations we're talking about, because we're going to see here. Biden gets a little bit confused between a couple of them, and there's a lot going on. It's easy to get confused. The talks between Putin and Biden, they're expected to focus heavily on the recent cyber attacks, the Russian military presence near the Ukraine, that many see as a preparation for an invasion in Moscow's interference, in the elections, which we're still talking about. So , uh, Alexi Nevani, we've talked about him on the show. He's going to be talking about Putin and he sent him to prison. Last I heard on the Navalny stuff. There is, I think there was a recent ruling from a court in Russia, whatever that looks like, that said that Navalny was part of an extremist organization. And so the Russians now are going to be basically dismantling their entire political organization. So they actually jailed the leader. I think he got a two year sentence in like the second worst prison facility there. And then the government just move quickly to just throw out the entire rest of the party. So if you want to know how sort of a totalitarian , uh , autocrats work, that's a good example of that. So Putin now is going to be meeting with Biden. We'll see how that goes. So , uh , Putin said, imagine if we send our troops into direct proximity to your borders, what would have been your response? They said, yep . So, all right, so that's some good news. We've got some geopolitical affairs happening, some international security concerns that are all going to be worked out. And Joe Biden is going to be representing America there. So sleep soundly America, Joe Biden is in he's on it. He's going to be dealing with Putin here soon enough. Okay. So what about some of the bad stuff? Maybe a little bit quick talk on the bad. That was some good stuff. A lot of concern, focus on China, some of the bad stuff. Well obviously it's going to be taxes cause that's all they talk about is just taking money and spending money, just dumping money at whatever problem comes across their desk. And so from the New York times, it says the G seven news was the summit ends with an agreement on a global minimum tax. So that's great. So all of the high school prom bureaucrats got together and they decided that they're going to tax the rest of us. So that's great leaders of the world's wealthiest nations wrapped up their first in-person summit. Since the operate, they released a joint communique on Sunday underscoring areas of solid area. The differences that remain when it comes to tackling a host of global crises. So that's nice. They're going to do this. The group, including Biden did not reach an agreement on the elimination of using coal. A failure that climate activist said was a deep disappointment ahead of the global climate conference this year. All right. So the lighters, the , the leaders also sought to present a United front. The agreement represented a dramatic turn of America's post-war international diplomacy. Mr. Biden said it was evidence of the strength of the world's democracies in tackling hard problems. Okay. All right. So speaking to reporters, let's see what else he says. All right. This is kind of a boring article three years ago, according to somebody China says, wasn't even mentioned in the [inaudible] this year, there was a section on China that speaks to the importance of coordinating on and responding to China's non-market economic practices. So we're getting back to China again, supply chain resilience, historic endorsement. All right . So let's get to the good stuff here. This is all the ugly stuff of our president wandering around the world, just trying to figure out what's happening. So here is something that comes over from the RNC. This is Joe Biden, and he says, you're I'm to get in trouble with the staff. If I don't take a call from a pre-approved list of reporters. So read this, this is coming from the RNC research. Now the RNC research of course is going to be opposed to Joe Biden. So they're going to be going through combing through everything that he said, everything that he was doing to scrape out the worst of the worst, just to show what a, what a bumbling buffoon he is. And so they did this, right? They did this for this clip, and you're going to notice, you know, I've talked about this before Joe Biden has said stuff like this before. Okay. Um , you know , I got to follow the rules. I'm going to get in trouble. It kind of reminds me of just, you know, that friendly old guy who just has says something that he uses when he doesn't know what else to say. He just kind of has a bag of tricks that he just says, okay. Right. Like, you know, people that do that, you probably may have your own phrases that you use, whether you know it or not just kind of a bag of tricks. All right . So I'm , you know, I'm fumbling around it's filler language. And so here's Joe Biden, right? This is an eight second clip. So I'm not even going to beat him up over this, but I'm, I'm going to get in trouble with staff. He says, and , and you'll see the RNC put this in quotes. If I don't call from a pre-approved list of reporters. So this is going around, right. 310,000 views. A lot of people watching this, a lot of people are giving him grief over this eight seconds long, but you'll notice that he doesn't actually say a pre-approved list of reporters, right. He just kind of says, I'm going to go in trial . I'm going to get in trouble if I don't follow my, you know, my order here. So I know that that practice, that, that realistically, that Joe Biden there's been enough evidence of this, that he sort of has a list that he follows. And he follows any calls on certain reporters. I think there's enough smoke there that we can guess. And to deuce that there is fire there, that this is something that actually happens. I'm not in favor of that, of this strategy. I think it is disingenuous, certainly, but I'm also not going to fly off the rails about it. We've got other videos for that. So here is what Joe Biden was getting into with , uh, trying to find a note card and figure out who to call

Speaker 2:

Next. Uh, I'm sorry. I'm going to get in trouble with staff. I don't do this the right way. Jennifer Jacob Bloomberg.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So right. About 300,000 views, a lot of people up I'm going to get in trouble if I don't on somebody. So it kinda turned into this big thing, and I can understand why, because people are sick and tired of him not being available. People want to want to see what he knows off the cuff, right? Donald Trump to his credit on the way to and from the helicopter, every time would just stop and just duke it out with the press, many press conferences, a lot of access. And even the press themselves, even the people who would be largely sympathetic to the left leaning ideology have been complaining about access to that, to, to , to the Biden administration. And we've seen this on Twitter from people who, you know, who are not of the same political disposition that I am. So you're going to see a lot of this. People are sort of just getting, I think , sick and tired of it. They just want some direct access without it feeling like the whole thing is scripted. Everything feels scripted from one minute to the next. All right. So , uh, you know, middle of the road, some critique there, some critique here, whatever let's move on and actually get into the stuff that matters, because that certainly matters. If, if we're living in this, fictitional , uh , you know , democracy where we have this fake relationship between our government and the journalists that are supposed to be holding the government accountable, that's kind of the function of the journalists. It's to say, we don't believe what you're saying. You , we don't think that you're being honest with us and we're journalists, we're going to get to the bottom of it . We're going to cross reference that public figure statement with that statement. We're going to get a four year request. We're going to dig in and get to the bottom of it. That's what it's supposed to be like. Not like what we see with Brian Stelter who invites Jen Psaki on his show and then turns around and says, oh, Hey Jen, you know, how, how are we screwing up as the press? Is there anything that we can do that might be more to your liking? That's not appropriate at all. But my point here is Biden call, you know, flubbing that statement messing up his note cards for getting on who to call next is not going to trigger probably a thermonuclear war worldwide. But if he's mixing up countries and doesn't have a good understanding of what's happening geopolitically on an international security stage, that's a problem. Let's talk about Libya and Syria. Here is a global map, a world map. And I want to just show you what's happening here in the middle east. We have Europe over here. We've got Asia and we have Russia over here. We have China over here. We got Taiwan, which is Taiwan, China. You could call this sort of Western Taiwan if you wanted to call that. So Taiwan is over here. We'll just call this Western Taiwan. We've got Kazakh , Stan, we've got Iran over here. And you'll notice we've got two important countries that we're going to talk about. In fact, Biden was talking about it. He was talking about Syria, which is located here. You're going to see this as sort of nestled right in between Turkey, Iraq. We have Saudi Arabia down here, Jordan Lebanon. And then we have Israel, right? Lot of activity happening in this little straight right here for a long, long period of time. We also have over here across the Mediterranean sea Libya, which is an entirely different country on an entirely different continent, known as Africa. So let's take a look now at what's happening here because we have Russia that is up here in the top, right? And what you're going to hear is, is Joe Biden talking about sort of the , the interplay between several different nations between Russia and Syria, and then also Libya . So let's take a look at what's happening in these two countries, because remember Joe Biden is meeting with Putin this week and Russia is really sort of involved in a lot of political affairs over here in this part of the world. So now it's sort of a conversation about Russia and Syria and Russia and Libya , or is that, is that right? Well, let's listen in and see what Joe Biden has to say about all of this. Wait a minute, hold on. I jumped the gun on this before we get there. Let me show you what Google news is showing us about these two countries. Okay. This is something that I think is , is pertinent. We're talking about the G seven. We're talking about the president, we're talking about international diplomacy, and this is what the news says for , from Google news. So according to Google news, if you just go there and type in Libya, we've got some stories about Krohn , okay . Four hours ago. So that's the French president or premier says that Turkey's Erawan wants foreign mercenaries out of Libya. All right . So Libya. So we got Turkey and we got Libya and we got McCrone. So that's France. Then what else we have, we've got record. Number of migrants returned to Libya. Okay. So these are all Libya story is McCrone says turkeys are to one wants foreign mercy mercenaries out of Libya. Okay. So it sounds like the French president is talking about Libya here. Right? Cause this is all sort of , uh , NATO news and [inaudible] news. Don't forget half tars, mass graves in Libya. Okay. We've got mass graves over there to Juan says Turkey can work with France on Syria. All right . So now we've got some, some, we got some mixed mashing going on here, take a look how complicated this gets. So we've got the Turkish, we got Turkey. Now who's with Ertle one . Who's also talking about France as also talking about Syria, which is over here. And then we have Libya and Libya now is part of these stories. Turkish president says, he told his French counterpart on Monday, the two countries can work together. Got it. So it's kind of a mess. Now, then we have the Syria news and you'll notice down here that we see, this is where Russia comes into play. So if we're talking about Libya, I didn't see anything about Russia, right? Nothing about Russia over there. All this was Turkey and Erawan and Syria and Libya and France. All right. So then we go over to Syria now and we'll notice that down here, the Assad regime and Russian attacks, along with the Assad regime targets civilians in Syria's community. Okay. So killed one 13 other were injured. There was another attack. So 18 killed in a shelling attack on opposition held Syria. Okay. So we've got just kind of a , you know, war and bloodshed kind of, kind of all over the place in this part of the world. Now we're also talking about major world powers like Russia and what they're going to be doing in this, in this particular part of the, of the planet and what Joe Biden is trying to do here is answer a question that is unraveling all of these complicated issues. Okay. Now what we're going to hear is about the most, one of the most painful, probably 84 seconds that I think, I think we've seen from this president thus far, there's another really bad one that came out today from the NATO event that we have not clipped for this yet. We'll probably talk about that one tomorrow, but this is probably one of the, one of the most painful 84 seconds that we've seen from this , this president . And I think what's, what's pertinent here. Kay is the fact that he's sort of screwing this up three times Syria versus Libya. And you can tell that he's screwing it up. So I want to see what you think about this, but you're going to notice that he starts using the same country. I think he talks, I think he's saying Libya, Libya, Libya several times. And then he sort of just mixes them up, right? He says, well, Libya, Syria, you know, they're there , they're going . It's not the same thing. My man, they are in entirely different parts of the, of the , the, the vicinity. They're different continents, right? We have one in Africa. We have one in Europe and the middle east. So it is a pretty important thing for the commander in chief, the president of the country. Okay . The commander in chief, the person who's sort of responsible for this, right? This is his base. This is his sort of number one job. Okay. We don't send Supreme court judges to go mix and mingle with foreign diplomats. We don't send Congress to do that. Now, occasionally they'll do that as part of their foreign trips, but this is the prime role of the president to go in there and deal with other foreign leaders and talk about these important situations, Libya, Syria, France, and the list goes on, right? The Russians. And now we're talking about civil war and death. So you would expect the president to be up to speed and competent and ready to go. When he gets asked any type of question. Now you can watch this. Now this is not, this is not just Joe. Biden's sort of mumbling and bumbling around. This is that also in the context of very sensitive international relationships, let's watch what Joe Biden has to say here.

Speaker 2:

Um, we can work together with Russia, for example , uh, and , uh, in Libya, we should be opening up the, the, the passes to be able to go through and provide , uh, provide , uh, um, food assistance and economic, I mean, vital assistance to , uh , a population that's in real trouble. I think I'm going to try very hard to , uh, it is by the way, there's places where I shouldn't be starting off in negotiating a public here, but let me say it this way. Russia has engaged in activities, which are, we believe are contrary to international norms, but they have also , um, uh, bitten off some real problems. They're going to have trouble chewing on . And for example, the rebuilding of , uh, of , uh , Syria of , uh, of Libya, you know, this is they're there. And as long as they're there without the ability to bring about some order in the , in the region and you can't do that very well without providing for the basic economic needs of people. So I'm hopeful that we can find an accommodation that where we can save the lives of people in, for example, in , uh, in Libya , uh, that , uh, so

Speaker 1:

He's looking at his cue cards a number of times, and he's just botching through the whole thing. Now you can just tell, I mean, in my opinion, I can, I can sort of read it on his face. He says, you know, Libya, Syria, you know, they're there , right? And we've seen this from Joe many times. He goes , you know, the thing, and he just kind of goes off, you know , uh what's, what's the thing that he says, come on, man, come on, man. You know, do you know the thing, whatever, right? And he just sort of doesn't speak and presumes that you are understanding what he says, because he's not actually functional up there, which is a big problem. Big problem. When you're the president of the country, big problem, when you're going to be dealing with Putin this week. Right. And we've got somebody who I've been saying for a long time is not there. And I just think that that is the sad thing that's happening to him on , on truly anyways. All right. So let's continue on. So that was actually sad, in my opinion, this is actually just ridiculous. So this is the last clip, and this comes over from business insider and business. Insider is telling us the Joe Biden was corrected by Boris Johnson, who is over from the UK, UK prime minister. After the president interrupted him at the G seven summit. So now we've got Joe Biden here. Uh, Boris Johnson was seen correcting him at the G seven summit. After the president interrupted him to wrongly suggest that Johnson had failed to introduce the south Africa's president. There was a round table taking place. We're going to see this exchange here in a minute. Johnson appear to twice waive away Biden's interruptions on Saturday. And I want to point this out. Okay. When we watch this clip, watch what Johnson does. Okay. Watch the body language. There are these , uh, there's uh , a body language YouTube channel here on YouTube. Actually, I forget the name of the channel. You find it type body language panel type in body language panel. You'll find it. I'd be very curious to see what they say here, because Johnson is like, just like shutting Joe Biden. And he's like, Hey, shut up. Okay. You're wrong. I knock it off. And he kind of puts his hand out like that. Right? When you stop somebody, Hey, stop it. So you're going to see what that, you know, what happens there. Then UK prime minister, welcomed prime minister, Narendra Modi via video link , then introduced south African president Tsai , real ramp, FA Ramaphosa. They joined the leaders. And , and so as this is all happening, Joe Biden adds , he says, and the president of South Africa and , uh, Boris Johnson says , uh, and the president of South Africa, as I said earlier on and by and says, oh, you did. He says , I did. I certainly did. Johnson said right, all the while is he's sort of pushing him on. Now that doesn't sound bad. But watch, when you see what happens. According to the body language, world leaders agreed at the summit. The first, the major first in-person meeting to donate 1 billion COVID vaccines to poor countries. They're also going to do more to address the climate change crisis. They're also going to pledge to raise a hundred billion a year. So that's what I told you. Just, you start raising tax . Well, they have a new tax now. So of course they got to raise some more money. So I'm charities and campaign groups. Whoever said the commitments were vague, then not go far enough. And they're saying never in the history of the [inaudible] , has there been a bigger gap between their actions and the needs of the world said the Oxfam's head of inequality policy. So they have an entire department at Oxfam for inequality policy. We don't need to wait for history to judge the summit as a colossal failure. It is plain for all to see, well, Kent disagree with them on that one. So, all right. So let's take a look here at this clip here. So this was a big story over the weekend, and it was your , I'm not, I'm not just, I'm not just going out here and trying to find issues with this, but this is a big story you're going to see here. This is a top story over from sky news. And you'll notice that the clip down here has 1.4 million views, right? It's a lot of people saw this and saw what kind of a disaster. This whole thing was. Boris Johnson insist to Joe Biden, that he already introduced the president of South Africa to a [inaudible] a meeting here. It is

Speaker 3:

Just joined us some pretty spectacular weather with Justin [inaudible] joined

Speaker 1:

Folks. I would invite you to go look at that clip, blow that up on your big screen at home. Take that video and blow it up and watch just what followed Biden's eyes. He has no idea where he is. Take a look at this image. So this is a, still from a different angle. Look at this. Oh my gosh. Here is Boris Johnson who is just absolutely just shocked. Right here is Joe Biden, who just said , uh , and the south African president and Boris Johnson just like literally just introduced him. And here's Joe Biden going, you know, calling them again. Look at this, look at this face over here. That is sheer shock. Now, if you are not familiar with me, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I have access to some pretty advanced technology. We're going to, we , we're going to just ask the computer to CSI, enhance this for us. A good computer, enhanced this for us. They can look and you're going to see here. We can zoom in. We've got, we've got some absolute shock in this face . This is Boris Johnson, the prime minister from the UK. I say shock right here. You can sort of see the shock here in the gaping. The jaw is actually dropped right there. So I think that shock , I think what you can see here from the eyeballs are just sort of this big bulge here, which to me is actually showing disbelief computer. Let's enhance this a little bit further. There it is. So we've got some disbelief here. I think just in Boris Johnson's face just entirely shock and disbelief at this exchange with the president of the United States. Just absolutely just can't even

Speaker 4:

Believe

Speaker 1:

What is happening. Well, Boris, my friend, neither can we over here across the pond. So we're in the same boat with you now. Some other goofy photos came out. So these are the prom bureaucrats here taking a picture. So they're all doing their social distancing now because at the barbecue, that was a different story, but they're, they're socially distance here. And you'll also notice that , uh , what kind of looks like they beamed down from star Trek. I saw a comment like that on Twitter. And it looks like if you watch star Trek, then you know, the person in the red outfit never makes it. So we're all gonna keep saying our prayers for Ms . Merkel over from Germany, but kind of a goofy photo. I think it's a little bit inappropriate that all the white males are up front . And , uh, and , uh, that's, you know, that doesn't seem very equitable, but the internet had fun with this goofball photo looks like a bunch of action figures who, you know, hanging out. So the internet went hog-wild here. We've got , uh, some, some, some good additions. I think we got, we got big Dawn down here at the bottom. Who's Le lounging out at the beach. Who's catching some rays. We got Bernie over here who is , uh , he , he's not liking the sun . He's still a little bit Chile . We've got, we've got big Chris Christy who's over here. And he's just Baskin up in the sun, but a handsome fellow over there just catching those rays it's summertime, baby [inaudible] is out there. So are a lot of them of our , uh , elected officials. So that's just a lot of fun. All right. So that was a good segment. We're going to be seeing more about that . What's happening throughout the , uh , the world with our leaders. Let's jump into some questions. We're going to start here from watching the watchers.locals.com , which is our, our community where you can support us if you want to do so let's start off here with farmer's daughter. She says, meanwhile, the U S is making dresses for the trans soldiers. She'll soldier. Yeah. And I think they're also doing , uh , some other interesting things. I've seen some of those interesting army promos coming out with, well, I don't know what kind of soldiers they're intending to recruit, but we'll see how that goes. I want to know, says isn't the, [inaudible] just queen and Ross . Child's telling the rest of the world, we want all your money and we might give you a thank you. Isn't the queen, the richest person in the world. Doesn't she own HMS and all the land, et cetera. There's studies that she could feed everyone in the world that is starving, but greedy, I don't know. I don't know the facts on any of that, but I would guess the queen is quite rich. And I would guess that, you know , the people who are running and sort of managing, you know , I don't really know where I sit on this. You know, there are, there are certainly different layers in society. And I just don't know sort of how up that hierarchy goes. I'm not sure if I'm part of that secretive cabal group. I like to play around with those ideas, but I'm just not sure that I've seen any evidence of that practically speaking. So let's take a look next to Sharon Quinn . And he says, did I hear you right? That now they're going to tax everybody whatever happened to no taxation without representation well died a long time ago. I think, I mean, in America, if you remember, we used to have sort of a proportional representation system where for every segment of the population you had, you would get a representative based on the amount of people in that bucket. Right. And suddenly they , that just changed. I think that was back in the 1920s. Maybe I did a whole video on this. I did a deep dive on this topic. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but there was a point in time where I think you've got, you know , one house house representative for every like 50,000 people in America. And the house of representatives just kept expanding in size. And so at some point we just said, no, we're just going to cap that you don't get that same level of representation anymore. We deemed it . That was okay in the original constitution. But now we think that the house of representatives is getting too big. So we're just going to put a cap on that. So I would like 435 representatives now. So now our version of representation is much smaller. So I'm in Arizona. And I think my version of representation is one to about 700,000. Whereas when the constitution was originally founded, it was something like one to like 39,750,000 versus like 50,000. Right? So my proportion of representation was much greater originally. So now what we have is sort of like a second Senate don't we we've got us one Senate with a hundred senators, and then we have kind of a smaller Senate with 435 house representatives, but are sort of like pseudo senators is a little bit different rules. Two-year elections versus six years. And you know, some things changed a little bit, but I would , I would be okay with more representation, not less. So it's just trending that way. Why wouldn't, why wouldn't we pay taxes to the world health organization or to the UN or to NATO or whatever they tell us to do, because we don't get representation anyways. Want to know, says Biden's biggest problem is he does not know how to politically be us pre-approved list, best election, maybe speech writers need to stop circling what he isn't supposed to say. I'm still surprised he is still the president. I feel sorry for him kind of . I know , I know we've got, I'm not guessed as remember 2016. What is Aleppo? Yeah. Who, who, who was that? The thing that was a Trump thing, right? Aleppo. I think that was Trump. Yes , but, but did Trump's sort of Bumble around for 90 seconds? Maybe? I don't know. We've got Sharon Quinn . He says, well, G shock and awe . What's not to like, we've got, we've got next up. We've got Kareem. Kareem says I am Canadian. I'm planning to take vacation this summer and travel south to the USA. My concern is that I will be required to be vaccinated to do that. Well, I don't know what the, I don't know that you're going to see any requirements Canadian and planning to go down to the U S so I , I think maybe the Canadian rules will be stricter than the American rules. Yes. Because I think that Canada is , uh, is pretty strict based on what I've heard. So I don't, I , you know, I don't know. And in other words, I'm not sure that the United States is going to require you to be vaccinated and provide proof to get into the United States. But traveling back from the United States into Canada, they may require some evidence of that. So all of those questions were outstanding. Thank you for those that came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you all for those over the weekend, we had a live training that was called law enforcement interaction training. It's available for people who are [email protected] But if you want to purchase a copy, then you can get that by going over to my new storefronts , whatever this is called, this is at Gumroad. These are different things that I have available for you. There are definitely nice promo codes over at locals, but law enforcement interaction training is available now at gumroad.com/robert ruler. So if you miss that and you want to support the show, remember YouTube de monetize . So if you support the show by buying any of these courses, that does help us out. And I also just sort of opened this one up to the public, the griller method, legal mastermind. And I wanna , you know, this has been going on for about about two years now. I started this program September, 2019, but I have not made it publicly available yet. So if you're a lawyer or a legal practitioner, give this a look over, we have a , a good group there and you can of course check all of this out by clicking that QR code. Also the RNR law group, this is what we do on a regular basis. So give us a , uh , a call, give us a follow, give us, we offer free case evaluations. You need help with anything that you see here in all of them . The information of course is down in the description below. Thank you all, all for your continued support. All right . So we're going to change gears again. And this time we're going to talk a little bit more about COVID because there's a new kid case that's taking place out of Texas, the Tory vaccinations. It is now a new topic for legal professionals to consider the big issue here is whether your employer can actually require you to get vaccinated. Before you returned back to the workplace. This story comes out of Houston and the New York times is going to give us some background on this. But this involves a nurse and a series of nurses, other medical professionals who are working in a hospital hospital after the vaccination comes out and says, you all have to be vaccinated. If you want to continue to be a part of a , of our team here, if you want to be an employee, you got to go get vaccinated. So the nurses said not , we're not too happy about that. They got together , either created a claim, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Texas. And we're going to show you what happened with that suit. Are the nurses going to be allowed to move forward and challenge the government or challenge this employer, which is sort of, you know, kind of intermingled with the government as a hospital. Are they going to be able to force them to get vaccinated? Let's see what's going on here. So from the New York times, this is written by Sheila Kaplan says a judge dismisses, oh, the Houston hospital workers lawsuit about vaccine mandates. So a federal judge in Texas dismiss the lawsuit. They challenged the vaccination requirement that was imposed by the hospital. The name of the judge who did this was Lynn Hughes. She's out of the Southern Southern district of Texas. On Saturday, there was a new ruling that came out and the hospital changed its policy. Back in April. Judge said that the decision to mandate the vaccinations, what's consistent with public policy. We're going to take a look at the full order of dismissal here. The judge dismissed the claim. Now, so the nurse here, her name is Jennifer Bridges. And she's the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. She said that the vaccines available for use were experimental and dangerous. She said that the hospital employees or the judge wrote the hospital, employees are not participants in a huge trial, right? Methodist is trying to do their business. So it's, it is a choice made to keep them safe.

Speaker 4:

Not the people

Speaker 1:

Who work there. The judges decision appeared to be among them. First to rule in favor of employer, mandated vaccinations for workers. Several major hospital systems have begun to require COVID shots . So we've got Washington DC now doing it as well as Maryland. And this one came out of Texas Southern district of Texas, a lot of activity in Texas. Now this is another one to add to the list, but many private employers and the federal government have not instituted mandatory immunization. As they shift operations back to office settings, equal employment opportunity commission issued guidance, allowing employers to require vaccines for onsite workers. So the EU C is now allowing the mandates. Yeah, this is going to continue to be a legal mess in Houston. The nurse Ms. Bridges was among those who let a out on Monday, the hospital's deadline for getting the vaccine on Tuesday, the hospital suspended 178 employees over this. They refuse to get the shot. That's a big deal, right? 178 people, anybody who was in hiring and small business or medium business, or this is a very big business, knows what a big problem that is. Okay. A lot of people right now are not looking for work. Uh, we've seen that at our own firm. And I've heard that from a lot of other employers out there. Now, maybe that will change once some of the federal sort of benefits start to wash away, but a hospital down 178 employees, what if there's actually really sick people there who need the help of those employees? Interesting. Right? That's a big number , uh , that bridges cited the lack of full FDA approval for the shot, his justification for the refusal, the FDA, which is granted a mute emergency use authorization says clinical trials show that they are safe as does the CDC. The judge noted the Texas employment. Law only protects employees from termination for refusing to commit an act that carries criminal penalties. Um, so we're going to read through it. Let's take a look at this order. In a statement later Saturday , uh, the CEO after this lawsuit was dismissed, said our employees and physicians made their decisions for our patients who are always at the center of everything we

Speaker 4:

Do. Houston

Speaker 1:

Methodist said it would begin proceedings to terminate employees who were suspended if they did not get vaccinated by June 21. So all those suspended are going to get booted. I'd be curious to see if they go get vaccinated or not. Jared Woodville , the employee's lawyer said on Saturday said the, the workers are going to appeal the ruling, right? Let's see what this order looks like. So you'll notice this was filed. June 12th entered June 12th, Southern district of Texas, us district court, Jennifer ridges suing the Houston hospital Methodist hospital. And it's not a very long orders and it's something we can fly through quickly. So let's, let's do so background, April 1st, Houston announced the policy requiring employees to be vaccinated all at its expense. So it's going to start with the leadership and then it's going to inoculate everybody else. They're going to pay for everything bridges. And 116 other employees sued. They want to block the injection requirement and the termination . She said, Nope , it's unlawfully forcing its employees to be injected with one of the currently available vaccines or be fired. The hospital has moved to dismiss the case. Bridges , dedicates the bulk of her claim, arguing that the vaccines are experimental and dangerous. This claim is false and also irrelevant. Okay. Let's see what the judge has to say about that. Cause it says , it sounds like, it sounds like we're, we're talking about opinions here, but let's see what the judge says. Bridges argues that if she is fired for refusing to be injected, she will be wrongfully terminated, vaccine safety and efficacy are not considered in adjudicating this issue, right? So the judge is throwing that out. We're not he's , he's saying with this sentence, we are not talking about vaccine safety. We're not talking about vaccine efficacy, not talking about whether they're good or dangerous. We're also not talking about whether they even work Texas law. He says only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to do something that is criminal, to succeed on a wrongful termination claim. She's got to show these other things. She does not specify what illegal act she has refused to perform. Right? So the judge is saying the only thing that counts for wrongful termination in Texas is if they ask you to do something illegal under this context, right? She refused to engage in the illegality. She's making a claim under wrongful termination. If there , if there is a claim of illegality, she's got to specify what that is. Cause that's the only way that she can get to wrongful termination. He says she didn't specify what she refused to perform, but in the press release style of the complaint , she says she refuses to be a human Guinea pig, right? So receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act. It carries no criminal penalties. She's refusing to accept inoculation in the hospital. Judgment will make it safer for their workers. She argues that the injection violates public policy, Texas does not accept, recognize this exception to act well employment,

Speaker 4:

Right? It just doesn't doesn't recognize it.

Speaker 1:

So the law , the judge is just making a law argument. It sounds like here, the Supreme court has held that involuntary quarantine for a contagious disease, disease and state impose requirements of mandatory vaccination do not violate due process. So they're referencing this case. Jacobson versus Massachusetts. This was decided in 1905. Let's read this. The state's compulsory vaccination law did not violate 14th amendment. I know Louisiana law requiring involuntary quarantine during a yellow fever outbreak was a reasonable exercise of state police power. So this, this judge actually went and found some case law on May 28th. The EOC said that employers can be required to vaccinate people. It's not binding, but it's advice. So he says her wrongful termination claim fails, right? Not even talking about vaccines at all. Doesn't even mention that really. We're not talking about efficacy. We're not talking about anything else that related to vaccines, other whether or not it was an illegal act. It wasn't, therefore her public policy says bridges . The nurse also asked the court to declare that the injection requirement is invalid because it violates federal law. So we have a second claim. So first claim was wrongful termination. Okay? So it's not about vaccines. It's about something about illegality. That didn't happen. So now how about public policies? Can the court stop the hospital from mandating? The vaccination bridges says this is invalid . It violates federal law says that no one can be mandated to receive unapproved medicines. She insists that no currently available vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA. Federal law authorizes the secretary of health and human services to introduce an interstate commerce medical products requires the secretary to understand the benefits. Bridges has misconstrued the provision. It converse certain powers and responsibilities. She also argues that the injection requirement violates federal law about the protection of human subjects. Bridges has misconstrued this provision. She's also misrepresented the facts. So folks, it sounds like this is just a really bad, bad , poorly drafted complaint. She also says that the injection requirement is invalid because it violates the Nuremberg code and she likens the threat of termination. In this case to being four to force medical experimentation during the Holocaust. And this judge says the neuroma code does not apply because the Methodist is a private employer and not a government acquainting . The injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible. Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that cause pain, mutilation, permanent disability and death. Your claim fails as a matter of law, it's necessary to clarify that bridges has not been coerced. Bridget says she's being forced to be injected with the vaccine or be fired. That is not coercion doctor says, or this, this judge says Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID virus. It is a choice made to keep staff patients and their family safer bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID vaccine. However, if she refuses very simple for her, she just needs to work elsewhere for worker refuses and assignment changed office earlier start time. He may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on a worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain.

Speaker 4:

Whew.

Speaker 1:

Very curious to see what you think about this. Let's take a look here. The conclusion Jennifer Bridges and the balance of the plaintiffs will take nothing from Houston and Houston Methodist. The Woodlands hospital signed off by Lynn Hughes, United States district judge. So it sounds like this judge is just saying, first of all, the first thing here is, it sounds like that was a poorly drafted complaint, right? She's talking about Nuremberg. She's talking about a lot of the medical , uh, yes, or nos around the vaccines, whether it's efficacious, whether it is something that you know , works or not. Judge says, I don't care about any of that. Here are the requirements in Texas for wrongful termination it's criminality. They got to require you to do something that is illegal. Did they ask you to do that? No, they didn't. So the judge is saying that everything else is sort of acceptable behavior for an employer to mandate. They want you there at eight 30, gotta be there at eight 30. If they say, Hey, you got to wear the hard helmet so that you don't get injured, got to wear the hard helmet. If they say, Hey, you can't do this thing. Cause it's dangerous. You gotta do it. This is a little bit different though. Isn't it? This is injecting something into your body. That many people have a lot of concerns about court says very simple remedy there . Get a different job if you don't want to work there.

Speaker 4:

Ooh .

Speaker 1:

All right . Let's see what we've got. We've got from watching the watchers.locals.com. Let's take a look at first up in the house is, want to know, says in Oregon, you need vacs cards for planes, trains, sporting events, waitresses, don't check them business, want money and hired help, and some companies to work for, but not apple and others. Thank you once a know we've got Sarah Smothers is in the house. As I don't understand how we can hold onto our freedoms. If public and private sectors start mandating certain things. If the employees move into the private sector and the private sector buckles, where else can they go? Yeah, that's a good question, right? Yeah . That's a good question. We're seeing sort of a realignment in many ways here, we're talking a lot more about, you know, people maybe not going back to work and maybe politicians are talking about universal basic income now. So if people don't work anymore, maybe they just collect, collect income from a universal, basic income. I don't know. Last up we've got angel 2, 2, 9, 9 says what if a doctor recommends a person not get the vaccine to due to medical condition and another health health reason, isn't there something under the ADA that would protect this person? You know, I think, I think so, right. If , if this person was in a situation where they, they had, first of all, I would guess that the hospital has some sort of medical exception to this. I , I would imagine that they would allow you to file some sort of thing that I have this, this very severe condition that might have this interaction with the vaccine. Therefore I'm concerned about it. They get, you know , signed off on by a doctor or the hospital says you're good to go. Don't worry about it. I would guess that that would be the solution ,

Speaker 4:

But I don't know . Good

Speaker 1:

Question angel. Think so. Second point on that. If there is no exception, then I think , uh , um , a more properly drafted complaints would probably be better. It sounds like what this, what this, what this lawsuit was really attempting to do was kind of, kind of be like a class action without being a class action, sort of lumping in a bunch of , uh, potential plaintiffs into one group without maybe they made it a class. I don't really know, but it was a poorly written complaint. They were complaining about the Nuremberg. They were talking about vaccine efficacy. They were talking about sort of, you know, quibbling over whether this was fully approved, whether the FDA, you know , experimental or not. So it was more sort of from what I can gather from the order, probably a complaint that was focused on waging war against the vaccine, rather than waging war against the wrongful termination or maintaining her place of employment, which are different things. I know I may not sound different, but they are right . One is saying, I'm going to, I'm going to Sue basically the legitimacy of the vaccine. That's not the appropriate forum for that. This judge is not going to allow that to happen so she can talk all she wants about the improprieties of the vaccines, about the FDA and all this stuff. Judge doesn't care, right? It would just be like any other reason for wrongful termination. And she's making a wrongful termination claim. What's the basis for that could be COVID could be sexual harassment could be a drug problem, could be, you know , other improprieties doesn't matter. The judge is just using that framework in application to the facts. And here she was sort of arguing that the vaccine was improper more so than from what I can gather that she was wrongfully terminated or that , that this was a , a constitutional violation to her. This is also a problem when you lump a bunch of plaintiffs into the same class, right? What if, what if angel to your question, what if there's one person that has a vaccine problem or has it has a potential for , um, uh, reactions, you know, adverse reactions if they take the vaccine. So they're in a separate situation than somebody else. And when you lump all the claims together, then you can't distinguish between the two. The judge may have given somebody who has an actual problem, taking the vaccine more of an issue, filing a complaint against the hospital, provided that they didn't have that exception where they could sort of, you know , allow them to , to work there without having to get the vaccine because of their adverse reactions. All right. Long, long, long answer. Thank you for that question. All right . We've got farmer's daughter now says this is happening all over. Doctors and nurses are speaking up and walking out on the job. The only side that shouldn't be trusted is the side silencing one side science can not be mandated, which is what is being done. Check out mayors , people who are suffering temporary and permanent disability and death rates far above other vaccines. So that's a, you know, of course take that. We can't give medical advice on this channel. We're not doing that. But what farmer's daughter is telling you to do is just to take a look. You know, we can't come to any conclusions about any of this stuff, but right. A lot of people are starting to poke around and try to find information about all of this for themselves and everywhere they turn, it seems like people are being silenced and shut, shut down. Uh, Bret Weinstein actually just had a video removed from his channel because he was talking about ivermectin with a, another , uh, very credentialed doctor, right. And YouTube just said, no, no, you're just, that's, that's uh , illegal science. We're not allowing illegal science on our platform anymore. So a lot of people are asking questions. I agree with you, Sharon. I think that, I'm sorry. That was farmer's daughter. I agree with you. Farmer's daughter. I think that the people who are censoring information have been on the wrong side of history forever. The sensors are always the bad guys. The people who are burning the books, the bad guys, if other people want to have a reasonable conversation and they're silencing their opposition, they're the bad guys. So I don't know why they keep thinking. They're the good guys. They're not, they're the people who are more responsible for it, in my opinion , uh , you know, deaths than other than other people. We've , we've been hearing this for a long time. If you don't put the mask on, if you don't lock down, if you don't shut your business down, and if you don't pull your kid out of school, if you don't wreck your life for the next 12 months, then you're killing grandma. Right? And many, many people were saying, well, I just want to talk about this alternative treatment. I just have a question about where the virus originated from. I have, I have a couple questions for the officials, because what they're telling us sounds like it's not logically accurate. So can we talk about that? No, you cannot shut your mouth. Follow the science that we tell you is science and accept it . Right? Those are the bad guys. They always lose. That's why I'm not worried about it. Now. Hugging Menin says, wouldn't that be a violation of HIPAA? So I am not. So , uh , I don't think so, because that would be sort of a condition of employment. And I'm sure that there's all sorts of waivers for that . I don't know, HIPAA . I don't do the employment stuff , uh, at our firm or the , uh, the HR stuff we have that we have smarter people than I deal with all that. So I don't, I don't actually know what that would look like. It's a good question though. Probably should figure that out. Shouldn't I, we have, I'm not gas as personally I side with the nurses here, but the judge made the correct decision based on the laws as written. It would have been much easier to go for a religious objection claim in my humble opinion, in my opinion. Yeah. I'm not gassed . I think you're, I think you're sort of onto something there. It sounds, I didn't look at the bat . I didn't look at the underlying complaint, but based on the judge's characterization of that complaint, it probably was not great if I can, could, could , uh, could guess right now, I think this is also a very tricky, fine line, which is sort of why I wanted to talk about it, right? Because on the one side, you kind of don't want government mandates really either way, right? If you're somebody who's small government minded, if the government comes in and mandates healthcare , it's a problem, right? The government comes in and mandates vaccines. That's a problem. But if the government comes in and mandates mandates, no vaccines, why is that not a problem?

Speaker 4:

Right?

Speaker 1:

I don't know. I, I sort of liked the idea that individual organizations can decide for themselves. And the government gets out of the way in general. Just let him , let him , let him sort it out. Okay? If this hospital wants to mandate vaccines and they just lost 180 employees, they're going to probably reconsider that. At some point, we're going to have to have a determination about whether they're going to be able to maintain a full staff based on their policies. If the market speaks to these people, just say, no , we're done. We're leaving. Then we're going to go to that hospital over there. That actually does science right now . Not this this

Speaker 4:

Possible . I would ,

Speaker 1:

I would. I'd like to think that would work, but I'm sure there's reasons why it wouldn't. We have underscore shades that says there are X, X messages on the freeway. Traffic signs , huge marketing. So how is the government not in this? There are X, a X messages on the freeway. Traffic signs. What are X a ? Oh, I got it. Yes. Messages on the freeway. Traffic science , huge marketing. Those are VAX messages. He's I think he says VAX vacs messages on the freeway. Huge marketing. They're they're here in Arizona. Yeah. I think you're here in Arizona shades. They're all over the place. Right? Get vaccinated, everybody. I think they're doing a lotteries and they're all sorts of stuff. Why is that to save lives? Dr. Fowchee. Okay. We've got John Hal green says the judges logic seems flood. Do our rights end when we walk into the workplace while some of them do yes . Some of them do. Yeah. I mean, yes. I mean, practically, some of them do, right. You can't go into, into work and start just doing whatever you want. If your employee just decides to terminate you, right? Like some of your free speech rights. For example, if you go in and you just start exercising free speech and your employer terminates you for dropping F bombs at him and you Sue him for free speech, that's not going to go anywhere. Right. A judge is going to say, oh, well you have free speech, but you have agreed to limit it by engaging into this voluntary contract with your employer. So I think, you know, I understand your position, John , John, the logic seems flawed. Do our rights in when we walk into the workplace. Yeah. S unfortunately, some of them do a lot of them do. Um, this is a tricky one though. I agree. This one. I'm not, I'm not real sure on this one yet, because you're putting something into your body now. All right . We're going to see a lot more of this. All right . We've got, I'm not good question, John. I'm I'm, I'm , I'm sort of working the gears along live, which is not a good thing to do. I should do that after the show we have, I'm not gas. As I propose, we make it illegal to make inane and trite comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazis. Every single political argument suffers from reductor at Nazi us . Nazi-ism, you know, I saw, it's funny. I'm not guessing . I saw a funny , um , I saw a funny tweet the other day because Marjorie Taylor green, right? We've not talked about her on this channel. I don't really get that whole thing, but she's a Republican who is extremely conservative and very sort of vitriolic. I would say she's sort of the conservative version of AOC, right? We have AOC who's out there basically like an Instagram politician. I think Marjorie is trying to do the same thing in her own little way. And that's, that's, you know, that's their, their, their strategies. I actually heard Matt gates in a clubhouse talking about this. Okay. And he's part of that same wing, right? He's somebody who likes to just throw a lot of red meat out there, mix it up. And some people like that. And I think there's a time and place there. There are times when that's appropriate, AOC is very effective for the Democrats. And so the Republicans are going to respond in kind, but what Marjorie Taylor green was doing was saying everything resembled the Holocaust, right. Everything. So vaccinations, doctors , lockdowns everything. And at one point you're going, is she serious? Like that doesn't resemble anything like the whole , what are you talking about? And it's like, that's not even remotely close. And so some people were speculating that maybe that she was just doing exactly what you're doing. She's sort of extending it to the logically absurd lengths, right? Everything's Adolf Hitler. Everything's Nazi because we hear that a lot. Right? Every time that Trump did anything, it was, you know, orange Nazis , ruining America. And we hear this from both sides of the political spectrum. Everybody is bringing about the forthright everywhere turn . So I agree with you. I think it's kind of ridiculous. I try not to do it here on the show. You know, I I've , uh , I've spent some time over in Germany. I went and was fortunate enough to spend some time visiting Munich and things. I try not to be too, too kind of jokey about it. Cause it's a , it's a serious thing that happens . And you know, when we, when we, when we talk a lot about a lot of the issues in America, we can absolutely jump out of our seats and get riled up about them. I do regularly here . I have a lot of fun doing it, but we also have to remember that it is not the Holocaust. Okay. What's happening in the schools with CRT is not the Holocaust. Now you might, you know , open up a history book and say no, but , but, but it was a precursor to that. As we have heard from the woman that we heard in the school board meeting last week, the , the woman who had immigrated to the United States left communist Mao's China was talking a lot about sort of the , the class warfare that was happening there under the bourgeois versus the proletariat. And now here, it's sort of extending between class in terms of rich and poor. It's sort of turning into race, right? Different classes of races. So I can see the extension of that. Absolutely going that direction. But it's also not the Holocaust. Okay. When , when we're talking about black lives matter, when we're talking about justice problems in America, when we're talking about police reform or any of the other things we talk about, things are bad. Things can absolutely use some improvement, but they're not that bad. Okay. They're not Holocaust bad. They're actually pretty dang good. If you look around here, right? A lot of people have a lot of things. Very nice. I think a lot, the unrest that you see is because people have it very nice. They're kind of bored. They got nothing else to do. They got nice TVs. They got Netflix, they got cars. They're not paying their student loans off. Government's thinking about giving them a bunch of money. They just keep it , you know , uh , giving people, you know, free money all over the place and they're bored. So they gotta go find something to be mad about because there's nothing to work for anymore. Everything's kind of just being handed to people. So they got to get angry about something and find problems where there aren't any. So we'll see where it goes. But we all just got to , you know, check back in with the world. Things are pretty, pretty good for most people. Not everybody. They're not perfect for everybody. I'm not saying that our work is done, but not everything is a Nazi. Okay. And not every on everything is the Holocaust I'm with you. I'm not gas. I like that. All right . We've got, farmer's daughter says today on louder with Crowder, they are talking about their two strikes. They read through a list of censored material absurd, and the list is unending. That's crazy. You know, I subscribed over to those guys. I just supported them just because I don't hardly even watch the show, but it just angers me when YouTube does that. Right. These guys are on two strikes. They get one more channels gone . What's four , four Crowder now to be fair, right? He's a little bit provocative at times. I was sometimes when I have trouble like sleeping at night. Cause I said , I think I said something stupid on the show and I'm going to lose my bar license and everything's going to come crumbling down. I just turned on Crowder show and I go, oh, look what he said. So I'm good. I'm perfectly fine. So I understand YouTube sort of, you know , um, uh, flexing with him. But it's also not appropriate in any sense of the word to be keeping him a two strikes, borderline canceled off of YouTube. He has like 5 million subscribers. Oh my gosh. Terrible. All right . We've got realtor. Patty says, I am one of the people that can't take the COVID shot. Right? So there you go. So I'd be curious, realtor, if they would give you some sort of an out, if they would say, Hey, here's an exception for people that have, you know, a certain, you know , factors that might cause an adverse reaction. You don't, you don't want to impose that liability on your corporation by mandating that somebody does something that hurts them. All right . We've got John Halligan says, so if the hospital says you have to drink a five-hour energy. When reporting for work, you have to do it. It's not illegal. So you have to in Texas. So again, that's a good question, John. And I , I'm not an employment lawyer, but it sounds like what , what the judge was doing here is sort of connecting the way that I can analogize. This is back when we talk about, when we talk about the law and the government in acting laws that might infringe on your constitutional rights or your liberties, we have different levels of scrutiny. We say, okay, this new law that the government is trying to impose on us, we have to scrutinize it. We have to see if it's lawful or illegal or constitutional. And what have you. So we talk about these different levels of scrutiny. Now what's happening here. It sounds like it's a private corporation and it's an employment matter. So this is not exactly analogous, but it's , it's close. When the government requires you to do something we say is that allowed. And we have these different levels of scrutiny. It's the , the lowest tier is called rational basis. We have intermediate scrutiny and then we have strict scrutiny. Rational basis is a pretty low standard. It means that if the government just has kind of a rational basis for passing a law, if it's a , if it's moderate , rationally related to any sort of legitimate government interest in furthering that, that government's interest, then that law will fly. And then it gets kind of a little bit harsher from there. So you work your way up, you get to strict the strictest scrutiny, which means we look at that law very intensely before we allow it to go through. And for strict scrutiny, it's gotta be something like the, the, the absolute it's absolutely necessary to pass this law and give the government power in order to do this, to achieve some sort of very compelling government interest, right? It's not just rational anymore. Like, oh, it's kind of, kind of something that's closely connected to a legitimate government function. It's actually legitimately it's , it's critically necessary. We cannot get it done any other way . This is the only way to do it. So what this judge sounds like he was doing is he was going through that. And he was saying, okay, well, what the, what the hospital is act is asking, is it reasonably rationally related to a legitimate function of the employer? Something like that. Right? So a five-hour energy, maybe not so much, maybe that's not a public health crisis. So that would be something that would be held to a lower standard. And is it , is it even is , is a five-hour energy rationally related to performance at work. Yeah, maybe, right. So you can say it's rationally related, but COVID and a vaccination might be higher, right? It might survive that strict scrutiny because the judge might say, ah , this is a , this is a hospital. We have a lot of vulnerable people here. We need to make sure that the employer has a very strong interest in making sure that people are vaccinated. There's basically nothing else we can do to ensure that COVID, doesn't breach the hospital perimeters. And so when the judge goes through that analysis, they're going to tell us that this law is necessary to achieve those goals. There's no way , no way else to do it. And so I think that's a little bit different than five-hour energy, which may be , there are some alternatives. Okay. Now I don't want to have coffee. Right. Go have a , uh , an energy drink, go drink, macho , whatever. Right. There's a lot of other alternatives there. So I think the judge is probably in his mind going through something like that, that great question we got Mestizo Quixote says , uh , regarding the meeting, I would rather that her particular brand of vitriol is, oh , uh , MTG, Marjorie Taylor green. I would argue that her particular brand of vitriol is really effective for anything but preaching to the converted. It rarely persuades people. I think that's a great point. That's a great point Mestizo , which is why I'm not a particular fan of it. You know, I've been seeing Matt gates do that. I've been seeing Marjorie Taylor green do it. I , I just, I don't think it's very effective. And I think that there's, there's a better way to, I think, have more appropriate dialectics, like is AOC Ilhan, Omar, Reggie , uh , uh, Cori Bush, Reggie Bush, Cory Bush. Who's the , uh, Jamal boat. And I think, you know, sort of the, the, the, the clan , what do they call them ? The crew, the , the squad is what they call them. So, so, you know, are they going to be persuading people over to their side? Probably not. You know, are they going to be dragging a bunch of Republicans over? No, but they are going to be really generating some fervor and momentum amongst the base, which is also important. So we're going to see how it, you know, how it, how it goes. I don't know. I don't think it's protect particularly interesting. I don't think it's effective, but some people might. All right , we've got Jeremy Mitchell. As I understand, if an employer requires a potential employee to take a drug test as a condition of employment, however, and employer decides to require a non-standard vaccine as a condition of continued employment, this requires more investigation. Yeah. So I think it's a good point. And it's an interesting analogy there, Jeremy, because you've got with a drug test, you're, you're taking stuff out of your body and just measuring it with the vaccine. You're putting something into your body that many people are saying, you know, changes, maybe not your DNA, right? It's not reprogramming your DNA, but it's doing something to your immune system. Given the fact that it now sort of reprograms your body so that the next time the COVID virus comes into your body, your body triggers this immune system response. It wasn't going to do that before you took the vaccine. Now it's going to do that. Something changed in there, right? Which is different than excreting something from your body. You're actually physically changing yourself, which I think is a very important distinction. And we'll see what the law does with that want to know, says, I think this is just a big DeSantis scam to get everyone to move to Florida. Yeah. Or, or Texas governor. There is doing a lot to seems . There's a Florida commercial. Why you should move here. Of course it's Trump's fault because he lives there now to , uh , Abbott right out of Texas, he's doing, he's doing a lot, man. These governors are going, going crazy. Jeremy madrina says, I think if the media would have admitted, the virus had been created as a deliberate bio weapon, more people would be motivated to protect themselves by getting a vaccine. I, I agree with you, right? If people were, let's say on the fence about masks on the fence, about lockdowns on the fence about masks , explanation, and R came out and said, oh yeah, this actually was a bio weapon from China. Yeah. And here's what it does. Here's how we know. So as a nation, we need to kill this thing. Like immediately, okay. Time that , that America's sort of been attacked like this, historically speaking Springs into action. Okay. We've talked about this previously. When the United States got hit on Pearl Harbor sunk a bunch of ships, we could have just sort of said, oh , that's it. Thanks for playing. Good move. Nice strategy there . Japanese didn't do that. Just said, okay, we're going to just send some subs down there. Some scuba divers, we're going to patch up the shifts. We're going to float them back to the top. We're going to sail them right over to you. Japan. We're going to show you, you know , what American diligence looks like. So we respond that way. Naturally America Springs to action. Anytime there's a world problem. The last time we had this tsunami in India, right? The United States like boom, like millions of dollars, like in seconds to be donated over there, we like to solve problems. It's in our culture. There's a great story about, about the culture of America being the way that it is is because it took a lot of people, a lot of kahunas to just get on a ship and sail across the sea, back in the 16, 17 hundreds took a lot of stones to do that. Right? So you have these people immigrating into this country, you know, not, not to, not to say anything about, you know, the native Americans or the people that were already here, but there's a lot of sort of argument that the people who got on a boat and just said, I'm leaving everything behind. I don't care. I'm coming over here. That maybe they may be a little bit more risk favorable. Right? And so maybe there's this, this genetic composition or there's this culture that's been built in America because all these people from all over the world, it doesn't matter what part of the world they came from, picked up and just come on over here. Right. And a lot of people were not, you know , did not have that option voluntarily, but there were sort of bred into this, you know, brought into this entire environment where you have to be kind of a little bit nuts to come and join the new world. So if you have this situation where, you know , you have this group of people who just likes to solve problems and likes to take risks and likes to try and experiment and do big new, crazy things. Maybe why America is as, you know, as, as, as big and powerful as we are. I think it's an interesting thesis. But my point here, Jeremy, is if they would have told us, I can tell you this, my perspective would have been drastically different. Okay. I would have , I would have looked at everything through a whole , not really actually, because I sort of was already looking through it at, through that lens. I've talked about that here. Right? We said previously, we've seen swine flu. We've seen bird flu. We've seen all these different pandemics around the world, my whole life. This was something different. So I know what the government was telling us. Oh, no, it's the same thing as everything. But my spidey senses, I'm sure yours were too. We're all tingling pretty heavily. And I never bought the original story nor did you, because it's BS. As we know there , it's all coming out right now. Right. Fowchee. And the list goes on and on now the U S has government is actually looking into, it would have been good to do, you know , back then, but we were all being accused of killing grandma back then. All right . So last question here on this segment is from Angie wo says, if the vaccine is so safe and effective, then remove the protections of the pharmaceuticals. Why should a citizen be forced to take a bigger risk than a corporation who will pay for a job loss as a result of a possible physical or neurological damage or long-term damage as a result of taking the vaccine who pays for the pain and suffering or the disability? Yeah, I, there's a whole, my understanding traditionally with , with vaccines, they set up these sort of funds that they, you know, we're not going to get into the vaccine stuff here. I'm not going to not going to do it. Thank you. Oh, I , I stand your point and we'll just leave it at that. Right. There are a lot of different people who get hurt all sorts of different ways in this country. And there are mechanisms that are supposed to be set up to make sure that they're properly compensated, but I don't know the extent of that for a crises as big as this. Okay. We're not talking about a couple of people who are getting, you know , uh , uh , sort of a , a low quantity vaccine. We're talking about vaccinating the , the planet. Okay. Everybody ideally, according to these bureaucrats, right? That's what they want everybody vaccinated. So at that point in time to the same systems that we've established historically, to make sure that people are not overly injured from vaccines, are , are those sufficient and robust enough to mitigate any of the expected damages that come down the pike? I don't know. I would guess probably not. Right. Because we've seen how , how well the government and the supply chains have done elsewhere throughout our , uh, our society. It hasn't been that good. All right. So great segment. All of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com. Thank you for all your support there. It really means the world. When you go on over there and join in our community, there's a lot you can get over there. Also want to plug quickly. My gum road , I have three courses that are now available for you to review and to download and to purchase. If it sounds interesting, we've got law enforcement interaction training. We have existence systems, which is my personal productivity systems. And then we have now a new course it's crueler method, legal mastermind. This has been happening. I've been doing this since 2019 with about 20 other lawyers and legal practitioners. So if you're in that space, give that course a look. Otherwise law enforcement interaction training is the one to get. That was a lot of fun. And we just recorded that. We also have the RNR law group. Hello, this is a , this is our law firm here in Scottsdale, Arizona. We help with things like DUIs, traffic, tickets, felony, drug charges, DUI charges, and everything and everything, anything and everything in between. So those QR codes will take you to where you need to go. And thank you for all of your support for all of the different things that we do, including checking out some of the channels that we have other videos on in the links down below. All right. So our last segment of the day, we're talking about the second amendment, good way to start the week off Missouri, the governor there, Mike Parsons signed a new law into law, a new bill into law, and he is telling the federal government, according to Juul , Julio, Ross from town hall to take their gun control and shove it. That's the title of this article. Missouri tells the federal government to take their gun control and shove it. This was posted on June 14th and w we'll note here that Julio Ross wrote this. He says that on Saturday, H B 85 house bill 85 was signed in order to defend the second amendment by allowing state gun laws to surpass, see that word, federal gun laws and punish his police departments. If an officer violates a state residents gun rights. So when I first saw this headline and I saw that first sentence, I was like jumping out of my seat . It's going what you're telling me that we have a state here in the United States that is going to tell the government that our laws are better than your laws. And they actually have more weight than yours do. Well. We know that if you've read the constitution that the constitution says, otherwise we have a supremacy clause that says that the federal government in all areas where there's a conflict between federal law and state law, federal law rules, it's the supremacy clause. The federal law is Supreme. So interesting. Now that this governor is going to say, I don't care about any of that. Here is here is what he says. It is our time to protect the second amendment. This is exactly what this bill does. And it's time to get this thing signed and get it into law . Second reason, I was like, what is under the new law police departments can be fined up to $50,000. If a resident's second amendment rights are violated. So not only is this governor telling the federal government get out of our way, or we're handling our own firearms laws, leave us alone. But also if the police departments come in and interfere with your rights, so guess how much 50 grand like that. Okay. I'll take it. All right . Governor Mike Parson for president. How about that? Now let's take a look here. He posted this on Twitter. He, and what's so funny about this is he was in law enforcement. Okay. He says throughout my law enforcement career, all right on Twitter, posted this on June 12th throughout my law enforcement career. And as governor I have, and I will always stand for the constitution and our second amendment rights that I was proud to sign this in the law, establishing the second amendment preservation act in Missouri. And what was so funny about this picture? So he posted this on Twitter this afternoon , uh, or , uh , this was back on June 12th . I saw it this afternoon, but if you'll, if you zoom in on this, pretty sure he's at a gun shop and he's at a , a shooting range. It says range check and firearm rentals here. So kind of, yeah , right. They set up shop there over at frontier justice, faith, family, and freedom. I love it. I love it. Makes me so happy. All right. So this guy signed this into law range and check-in firearm rentals just shoving it back in the government's face . Outstanding HB 85 draws a line in the sand. The governor says, demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. And their properties has this strapping young man sign that new law of justice right into , uh , into law. Make sure that America stays on track. Thank you, sir. Missouri's HB 85. Now puts those in Washington, puts those in Washington DC on notice that here in our state, we support responsible law abiding gun owners, and that we oppose government overreach and any unlawful efforts to limit our access to firearms. Second amendment, baby. Love it. And so, you know , they actually have some firearms in this facility, which is, which is nice. Uh , here in Arizona. I haven't been to one in a while, but yeah, we've got some stuff here. Shelves, shelves look pretty full back here. So I'm not sure if they just set that up for a Photoshop, you know, guns and ammo out there . A pretty light supply. Last time I checked. So let's see what's going on with this bill. We got HB 85 here. So if you go over to Missouri's general assembly website, you'll see this, their sponsor here was Taylor, Jared, Jared Taylor, introduce this and the governor signed it approved by the governor on six 12. Now, if you scroll all the way back up, this got first , uh, uh, what happened there? All right. And so my, my screen wasn't sharing with you, but , uh , this was signed back into law on , uh, or submitted as a bill back in January, the governor just signed it June 12th. And so I want to show you what the bill looks like. This is the summary of the bill. Okay. So here is what it says. This bill establishes the second amendment preservation act. So let's go through this. It says it declares that laws that prohibit the manufacturer use of firearms or anything like that exclusively within this state exceed the powers granted to the federal government. So they're saying that our laws within this state literally exceed the powers granted by the federal government, except to the extent that they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land enabled forces for organizing the Marines and all of this other stuff. Okay. So that's interesting. So I'll be very curious to see what the courts do with that. They're also declaring that all federal acts that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms must be invalid in this state. Okay. Any federal acts that infringe on a person's rights guaranteed by the second amendment is invalid. All right. So that's, that's, that's big man. And it says it includes anything that imposes a tax, a levy, a fee, a stamp, or any of these items, anything that requires the registration or tracking of these items or their owners that prohibit the possession or the ownership use transfer, or order the confiscation of these items. So he's wow. Paragraph one, our laws supersede your laws unless it's necessary and proper for the armed services, right? If , if it's, if it's related to the armed services, then yours are still Supreme. Otherwise they're not, ours are Supreme. In addition to that, if feds , if you try to impose a tax, if you try to eliminate possession, if you try to confiscate, if you try to limit trans transference of firearms,

Speaker 4:

Illegal

Speaker 1:

Paragraph three, it declares that it must be the duty of the courts and the law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. It, the duty, the duty of the courts, the duty of law enforcement agencies to protect the rights to keep and bear arms, okay. Law enforcement officers, hello, this is a duty, including a public officer or state employee, no person, including a public officer or state employee of this state can have authority to a force or attempt to enforce any federal laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. This law also specifies that any entity or person that knowingly acts under the color of law, federal law, state law, anything to deprive a Missouri citizen of the rights and privileges that are ensured by the constitution must be liable to the injured party for redress, including monetary damages in the amount of $50,000 per occurrence and injunctive relief. So 50 grand plus an order from the court that you can't do it again, reasonable attorney's fees and costs are also awarded to the prevailing party. The employer of the individual who is found liable is responsible for the civil penalty attorney's fees and court costs associated with the litigation. If the individual is found not to violate this act, government entities may not recover under this act. Okay? So the government can't Sue anybody and recover under this law, 50 grand per piece. Whoa. So I wonder how they'll define that. What if the, what if law enforcement comes in and they raid your house and they take 20 of your guns? Well, let's say they take 10 of your guns just so I can do the math is that $500,000.

Speaker 4:

Ooh, that's a lot.

Speaker 1:

All right . Paragraph five says it declares the federal excise tax rate on arms and ammunition. That was in effect prior to January 1st, 2021 does not have a chilling effect on , uh , on the ownership. So they're declaring that declares. Nothing in these sections shall be construed to prohibit Missouri officials from accepting aid from federal officials to enforce Missouri laws. Okay. So if the feds, that's curious, they're saying that if the feds give them money, they can still take it. But what if the feds attach some strings to that? Right? We talk about this regularly. We , we, yes. We have the federal laws that are SU Supreme to state laws. We have this system of federalism where you have the federal government and local governments , state governments. And here , what they're declaring is that our laws supersede the federal laws, but the federal laws are typically not applied

Speaker 4:

Through,

Speaker 1:

You know , mandate. In other words, the federal government doesn't come into your state and say, you must make your speed limits this, this amount or something. I think , I think this is how this works. It's an analogy, but they will say using the power of the purse, which of is Dick , uh , delegated over to the house of representatives that we're going to give you a bunch of federal money provided that you do certain things for us. It's money with strings attached. So if you make your speed limit in comportment with federal standards, we're going to give you money from the department of transportation or whatever. Now we're going to tax you regardless. So you don't have to take our money back, but we're still taxing you either way. So you're paying into the bucket. If you want some money out from those coffers, you're going to follow. You're going to play ball. So here on your paragraph six, now the question is, well, what if the feds come in , throw money at them? Are they going to modify anything? Well, I guess they can't right ? Because this is now law. So if the feds send money with some strings attached, will they take it or not? Paragraph seven says it declares that material aid and support shall include voluntarily giving early others to make use of lodging communications, et cetera. So we've got a definition here. Paragraph eight says it declares that it's shell, not . You considered a violation to provide material aid to federal officials. So we're getting into some nuts and bolts here. Declares at shell, not be considered a violation to provide aid for predator, for federal prosecution, for a felony crimes class, a or B felony crimes. Sovereign immunity shall not be a defense. And this bill contains an emergency clause. All right. So let's see what some people were saying on the back end . So ahead of Parsons , signing the bill, we have Missouri house minority leader. Her name is crystal Quade . She's a Democrat. She called the bill dangerous and radical. Of course, when people are looking for real solutions, she said on crime and policing, public safety, governor Parson, and the Republican legislature have instead chosen to preserve Missouri's growing rep reputation for extremists , dangerous laws. There are that word is new law even allows criminals who violate federal gun law to Sue our local law enforcement officers , officers for a minimum $50,000 . Fine. If they, in any way assist federal investigations, it quite literally defund the police and gives that taxpayer money to convicted criminals for a minority leader, crystal Quaid . Well, they wanted to defund the police. I mean, I don't know what they expect. Did that happen? They're getting what they want, defunding the police, if the police infringe on your rights out of Missouri. So, wow. That's a , that's a hell of a bill. Seriously. We'll see where that goes. The courts are going to have fun with that. We'll see how long that lasts, but very, very interesting. All right. Let's questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. First in the house is Barbie Ann what's up Barbie and says set up for the Supreme court. Doesn't the Supreme court settle disputes between the states and the fed. So yeah. So yes, yes, it can. Uh, it it's got original jurisdiction, I think for , uh, I can't remember all of them, but there was like three or four of them, but definitely between the states and then between the feds and the states. Can we see that? We see that pretty, pretty regularly. All right, we've got, who's left up . We've got Cove queen in the house. COVID queen says I'm late tuning in and I missed the big, beautiful spotlight moment. Can you give us a repeat the right to bear arms? All right. We can do it. We can do it. You ready for it? All right, let's get ready for it. How do I get into it? Uh, what, what comes before the big, beautiful spotlight that big, beautiful spotlight of a cat . Let's just do the whole thing again. All right . Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. 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 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 in with us Cove Queens 0 4, 3 . Thank you for that. We're not going to do that often, but today felt good. Didn't it. And I appreciate you jumping and asking us to do it again. It was a good way to start the week off, and I want to thank all of you on locals who asked us those questions and joined in for the fun today. We had a lot of it and we're going to be back tomorrow doing the same thing before we get into it. Quick reminder, I am over at Gumroad . Now gum road is a learning platform. Where did that go? There it is. Gumroad is a learning platform. I have some new courses that are available for your support, your purchase, if you want to download them. And I would really, really appreciate a review. So I'm trying to make this sort of something that I do now. Uh, it's uh , I'm having fun with these courses. I really like putting them together. So if you leave me a review, if you check them out and you enjoy them, that would mean the world. To me, you can click this QR code. If you're not interested in any of these courses, I'm working on others for Bitcoin, and I've got a , I've got a whole course. I wrote a whole book on criminal law called beginning to winning, and I'm turning that into a course. And I'm super excited about that because I think this can actually help people , uh , around the country. So I'd really love a follow. There would really appreciate a review. If you could help me out by leaving me one, that would mean the world. We also want to thank all of our supporters , uh, who signed up over the weekend. We've got here. We've rusty Marco who joined up [email protected] . Rusty macro, not Marco , rusty macro is in the house. So I'm wondering if that's like an Excel spreadsheet. Macro. That might be rusty. Interesting. We've got Rick Paul's in the house, not Ron Paul, Rick Paul. We got Maria. Tic is here. We got Maria tick again. Hopefully she didn't sign up twice. We've got sun set. Bla blaze is in the house or sunset blahzay. And we got Patty rod who signed up. Thank you all for your continued support [email protected] And I want to thank all of you asking great questions throughout the show today. Of course you keep the show lively and interesting, and we really do appreciate it. So if you want to support the show, you can go to watching the watchers.locals.com . You can download a lot of good stuff over there. Things like my book, which I mentioned beginning to winning, download a copy of my slides that we went through today, a copy of the impeachment party documents. You can download my existence systems program, or the course. There are links and other good things that we share throughout the day. And we meet with great people regularly. We've got our monthly locals meetup coming up on June 26 . So that is coming up here. What was that like two weeks from now? Our last one wasn't me . It was a lot of fun. We just go for an hour, seven to eight Eastern time, Saturday nights, just kind of a quick, Hey, how's it going? We all pop on here. It's a zoom. I think we had like 30, 30 something people on last time. And so it's just kind of a little bit fun. We're going to try to figure out , uh, some topics for this time, but want you to be there. So go check that out and watching the watchers.locals.com. And then of course I am a lawyer here, and this is our law firm. You can scan that QR code. If you want to go to our website or give us a call free case evaluations (480) 787-0394 . And we can help with anything. That's what we do on a daily basis. We love to help good people who are facing criminal charges, find safety and clarity in their lives, safety, clarity, and hope. That's our mission. We've got a lot of people at our firm who are dedicated to helping people find that. And it is really something that we can add value to where there is a lot we can do to help people. So if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona facing a criminal charge, it could be a drug charge, felony charges, DUI charges, anything, and everything in between, we can help. We would love the opportunity to speak with them. We offer a free case evaluations, and we have a ton of information on our website, tons of information on our YouTube channel that is dedicated to Arizona law. So I'd invite you to check those out in the descriptions below. I've got a crypto channel, I've got a non-life channel. And of course, on our , in our law group channel where we're really dedicated to helping people piece things back together. And so we would be honored and humbled. If you trusted us enough to send a referral our way, we'll make sure we take very good care of them. And that is it for me, my friends. It was a lot of fun being back here with you today. And I would really like to do it again tomorrow. If you'll have me. And I hope you will, because I'll be here. It's going to be at the same time, same place at 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central time, 7:00 PM for that one, Florida man. And I just posted my version of Florida man at our locals community. You know, if you type, if you type in your birthday or your birth month birth day and then type the word, Florida man or Florida woman into Google that tells you what type of Florida man you are , or Florida woman. I did that. I posted my [email protected] . All right, anyways, I digress 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast for that one, Florida man, find out which one you are because it is fun. And I will see you then my friends have a tremendous evening sleep well, I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye .