Is there anything you can or should do if you are facing a vaccine mandate as a condition of attending school or keeping a job? Yes. Absolutely, there is.
Robert Barnes, celebrated attorney in landmark cases representing clients as diverse as Wesley Snipes, Alex Jones and the Covington Catholic students who successfully sued several MSM outlets for public defamation, sits down with Chris to discuss today’s legal battle royale: vaccine mandates.
Barnes addresses the legally shaky ground the mandates are on, as well as the outright unconstitutionality of the argument for enforced compliance. He gives practical advice for you to follow if you are continuing to face mandates for both the initial vaccines and future booster programs.
In our current censorship heavy media environment, this critical discussion about these egregious attacks on our civil rights cannot be ignored and should be shared WIDELY.
Watch the Video
ARVE Error: src mismatch
src in: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CBk2HW2YIgc?start=2&feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&origin=https://www.peakprosperity.com
src gen: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CBk2HW2YIgc?start=2Actual comparison
src in: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CBk2HW2YIgc?start=2&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.peakprosperity.com
src gen: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CBk2HW2YIgc?start=2
Listen to the Audio
Chris Martenson [00:00:00] Hello, everyone, Dr Chris Martenson here of Peak Prosperity, and we have an incredible interview for you today. What are the legal issues surrounding vaccines, vaccine mandates, COVID, workplace rules, all of that. We have honestly one of the best people that you could possibly have to talk to us about this. He's smart. He gets it. He cares. Today, we're talking with Robert Barnes of Barnes Law. Robert, welcome to the program. It's good to have you here.
Robert Barnes [00:00:27] Absolutely. Glad to be here.
Chris Martenson [00:00:28] All right. Well, listen, I was in Phoenix and I heard you talk and it was the first time I'd heard you talk live. I was blown away. And really, what caught me was the whole structured legal framework. And how you thought about this. I think people need to know about our legal remedies right now. I think people in this country need to understand what they can do. Many of them are desperate for this information I get. I get pinged almost daily by people asking me help. I'm in the military. My son's going to college something, something something, and they want to know what they can do. So let me start right here. We're going to talk about COVID and vaccines in particular. Let me start with some punch lines, Robert. Are these vaccine mandates legal?
Robert Barnes [00:01:07] I don't believe they are. And I mean, the mandates are coming at different levels, you're getting mandates from the Biden administration. I definitely think those don't have any constitutional or statutory basis or legal authority. Then you have the vaccine mandates being issued by various local governments, though there have been fewer of those, though, and including in California school system in some other places, the Beverly Hills firefighters that they're trying to fire, you know, things like that. Those are already facing litigation as well. Then there's the vaccine mandates being issued by private employers for the first time in the history of the country. I don't believe those are legal in general, but at a minimum they have to accommodate for religious exceptions and medical accommodations. And I think they cannot discriminate based on perceived disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and its analog provisions in various state laws. So in my view, most of the vaccine mandates either have meaningful exceptions to them that basically allow them to be negated by the individual or don't meet legal standards or constitutional scrutiny at all. The only risk factor is will American courts recognize and uphold that? Or will they cower in the face of so-called pandemic emergencies as they have done in large part today?
Chris Martenson [00:02:22] Now I really want to get into that foundational stuff because that was the stuff really blew my mind. I didn't understand about the past prior precedents, the Nuremberg code and all this stuff that sounds before. It had been a little vague to me. You made it, Chris. Let's get to that foundational stuff in just a minute first. So when I'm looking at the CDC website, they themselves say, Oh hey, by the way, if you've had a bad reaction to this first shot or you have a history of anaphylactic reactions secondarily to vaccines in general or to any particular adjuvant or compound that's in any vaccine that's being issued now, you shouldn't get another vaccination. However, when I turn then and I hear about people from the military or from people I know who had bad first reactions, bad myocarditis in bed for a week, really horrible reactions. They have been unable, almost without exception, to get any exemption from that. What do we make of that? The CDC says you shouldn't have a second shot. Doctors and other authorities will not issue an exemption. What? How do we close that gap?
Robert Barnes [00:03:23] It's extraordinary what's happening and what we've built up over a century as sort of never again principle since the Nuremberg code, which was we were going to have informed consent going forward for medicine, period for health treatment, period. We weren't going to invade anyone's privacy without them having enough information to make it meaningfully consensual decision, not coerced as to there what goes into their own body and experiments concerning various aspects of medicine. And yet almost all of those provisions are being ignored by different groups, whether it's employers, the military, state or federal governments. Because, as you note, the CBC's own language, that CDC also had language that said, you can't mandate this. Just a few months ago, you know, before all of this, all of a sudden they launched the mandate. So the there's no question that there's a bunch of people who even the CDC says should not take this vaccine. And yet people are being forced to take it against their will and against their own doctor's instructions at times. And that's part of the problem is there's been such a rush to force this on people that are not following the most elemental medical or legal limitations on their course of conduct.
Chris Martenson [00:04:27] So you used a word a second ago coercion. What is coercion? How is that legally defined?
Robert Barnes [00:04:33] So historically, with the Nuremberg code, it informed consent meant that you didn't have any limitation or you weren't forced to do it. It meant truly you had all the information you needed to make to be able to make the decision yourself and that you did so on your own voluntary free will not because it was a condition of access to basic public services or a condition of access to to employment or anything like that, because that's then coercive and it's no longer consensual. And we've developed a large amount of law around the principle of informed consent, including in the tort of battery and assault in the United States that dates back more than a century. And we started. We realize the horrors of what happened when we let the state run amok with medical experimentation because of how the Nazis misused and abused it. And that's what led to the Nuremberg code. And we said these principles are so universally recognized that we can actually execute people for violating them. Even the Nuremberg code was not written down anywhere in Germany during the Nazi era. And so that was our our the way we came back to saying these are the standards that are going to govern this moving forward. And unfortunately, many of those standards have been completely abandoned over the past year by a wide range of state and private actors in the name of pandemic fear and concern. And there was no pandemic exception to the Constitution in the United States, even though multiple pandemics raged around the time of our founding. And there's no pandemic exception to the Nuremberg code and which is again international just Kogan's Law that's considered a recognized law. Any civilized society, regardless of what else is written on the books, but we're seeing the most disturbing attack on these principles in our history since the 1930s.
Chris Martenson [00:06:16] Now, obviously there have been a lot of encroachments and usurpations on the Constitution, at least from my perspective, civil asset forfeiture, a variety of things that I don't think passed what to me. But I'm no constitutional scholar. But the good news is I can read it and understand it. And so I feel somewhat competent as a citizen of the U.S. to say, Oh, I think I get this. But there was no pandemic exception, and people have noted that George Washington himself, who predates the Constitution, was fighting a smallpox pandemic and took a variety of measures around that. And even with that history and background and taking some measures that people would recognize today in terms of travel and letting people in and out of an encampment and how they how they behaved that they understood that still didn't write it in. And you're suggesting that wasn't an oversight. They knew it. They looked at it and said, We're not making an exception here.
Robert Barnes [00:07:07] Exactly. They understood the great danger that an emergency exception provided that ultimately such an exception would swallow every other right and responsibility that the government had to work towards its own people or citizens. This was also revealed in part of the reason for the establishment of the Nuremberg code was the failure of the Great Weimar Constitution of Germany by the Weimar Constitution was considered the most liberal, forthright, civil liberties oriented constitution in the history of Europe at the time. And so the question is how did that constitution give rise to the legal empowerment of the Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? It's because built within it was an emergency exception, right? In that said, you know, the chancellor could declare an emergency and ignore the rest of the Constitution. Many Canadians are finding out what happens when there's those kind of clauses somewhere buried in the Constitution. You end up like what the old parable in Mexico is, which is a constitution made of paper, sword made of steel. There points about Mexican constitution had some great provisions. They just have not been enforced very often over the last century in terms of civil rights and civil liberties. And that's what we're witnessing now, and there has been more and more judges in the United States and parts of other parts of the world that have warned about this, but not enough have rallied to the cause and rallied to the defense of the Constitution because the greatest threat to the Constitution has always been emergency exceptions. And that's why our founders said no way because they understood how dangerous it was. But we, our own Supreme Court, has frequently resorted to it to deprive people of civil liberties. Going back to the first ever vaccine mandate case to ever reach the Supreme Court in nineteen, oh, five.
Chris Martenson [00:08:38] So let's talk about that camel nose under the tent creeping authoritarianism. I was just reading this past week that Governor Hochul of New York had decided that racism is now a matter of medical emergency because she loves her medical emergency powers and is talking racism. Under a medical emergency clause, is that an example of what happens when the camel gets his nose under the tent?
Robert Barnes [00:09:03] Absolutely. Like what's coming up before the United States Supreme Court is deciding whether the Biden administration can use emergency exemption power, well, things they're calling performance standards, procurement standards, administrative efficacy standards. That's their pretext for this massive vaccine mandate, and all of it is predicated on emergency exceptions. Why they didn't have notice and comment, didn't have citizen petitions, didn't go to the legislative branch, didn't go to the judicial branch, didn't have meaningful hearings, didn't allow dissident opinions to be heard, didn't allow meaningful scientific research and review to even occur before these mandates were imposed, including on a head start on federal contractors, federal employees, the United States military through the OSHA on every worker that worked in any big company in the country is all based on emergency exceptions. They're all citing that. They're saying This is an emergency. We got to do what we gotta do, even though we're now two years into this emergency. And so, I mean, in the state of New York, they're considering expanding their emergency power to include the ability to arrest and detain people based on perceptions of threat. We have quarantine law that's well-established that has to prove clear and convincing evidence of imminent risk for which a quarantine is the only possible solution. They're wanting to scratch and scrap all of that. And you look at climate change politics. I mean, climate change could allow under the guise of a climate emergency to govern, you know, landlord tenant relationships, to govern what you could, how you could build your own home, whether you have to tear down your own home, what kind of fuel you can use and what kind of car you could drive. So you can imagine how scary that emergency power can be. And that's why the how the Supreme Court handles these vaccine mandates goes way past the vaccine. It goes it goes to the core of constitutional liberty and whether what our founders set up last or dies.
Chris Martenson [00:10:44] Well, what, what, what cases before the court right now, I know there's a big one. We're expecting a decision soon, possibly by the time this comes out. What's the case and how do you read the court? In this example?
Robert Barnes [00:10:55] So the two big arguments they're going to be having on January 7th is oral argument on the Oshae mandate and on the Medicare mandate. There's also the head start mandate. There's also the federal contractor mandate. There's also the federal employee mandate and who knows whether their mandate they're trying.
Chris Martenson [00:11:10] I'm sorry, Robert. These are vaccine mandates, correct?
Robert Barnes [00:11:13] Yes, these are all vaccine mandate. So under the guise of Hey, we need to make sure we have adequate procurement policies that are that have high efficacy in the federal contracting context, they required anybody who receives a penny of federal government money to impose a vaccine on their own employees. This then a head start. Same thing if you want any more head start funding. Not only was there a vaccine mandate, there was a mask mandate going down to two years old. Even if you were playing outside, your parent wouldn't be allowed to pick you up unless they were masked. Things like that with no with a one size fits all sledgehammer. OSHA Mandate similarly said all employers with more than 100 employees had to impose a testing requirement that there was an exception for only if the person was vaccinated, so it became de facto a vaccine mandate. Vaccine mandates being imposed on the military Even though right now there's a major class action suit about the anti-malarial drug that the military had been forced to take for many decades turned out to literally cause madness, according to the allegations of the suit, and that the people in the military and people in the drug industry knew about it and covered it up for decades. And now we're going to mandate another drug on them that when the their age profile doesn't appear to fit the profile of a high risk group within for COVID 19, the National Guard is being forced to take the vaccine in various states that's being litigated currently in Oklahoma. But what the Supreme Court will address is the upfront. The initial cases are the Oshae mandate in the Medicare mandate, so it was a mandate on any facility providing receiving any Medicare payments. Some of us always warn the federal government was going to put a lot of strings on those checks, they wrote. And that's precisely what's taking place, and this is the most extraordinary mandate in its history. But if the Supreme Court says they can do so as the lower courts have noted, that means the Biden administration can do whatever it wants with just executive fiat because it can just say we have an emergency where we're responsible for performance of various aspects of government. So we're going to require all of a sudden we're going to impose environmental standards on everybody that could restructure the entire economy in a way of life for people. And so this will not end here. If if the those of us that support civil liberties and constitutional structure don't prevail, that's why it's so critical that we must prevail because this goes way past vaccines and COVID 19.
Chris Martenson [00:13:32] So if I understood you right, then there's a precedent that possibly gets set here, which allows executive emergency decrees to basically be a sole source of of fiat law that comes forward. It bypasses all sorts of things legislative bodies, electoral processes. I don't know things that seem like they've been part of our country's history to date. I don't know that. Right.
Robert Barnes [00:13:57] Absolutely. I mean, it's well, when a federal judge said recently in enjoining the head start mandate imposed on head start facilities. He says this is about the separation of powers and whether it will continue to exist in the United States. We've framed a unique government that said one way to check the abuse of governmental power is to diversify and diffuse its power into different branches, and that those branches own jealousy of power would lead them to check in other branches excessive power. Now, unfortunately, in the emergency context, there's a history of even American courts failing from the vaccine mandate to for sterilizations to force detention camps between 1995 and 1945 forced segregation. It was the court that led the way. Unfortunately, often in the name of emergency exceptions, often the name of public health and the that's why why those of us who saw these cases realized how dangerous they are because they go far past dealing with this pandemic. It's about does separation of powers matter? Or are we going to return to the era of the eugenics era of the U.S. Supreme Court? That said, whatever public health authorities say can be imposed on anybody, anywhere, anyplace, any time, regardless of elections, regardless of the legislative branch regard, without jury trials, without meaningful evidentiary hearings, without any of the democratic processes that are supposed to restrain and restrict governmental abuses of power.
Chris Martenson [00:15:14] Now, Robert, this is something obviously you're very passionate about it. You've been doing this for a while. I found that article that was I think it's in the banner of your Twitter feed, which I think it's Barnes rages against elitism. Very, very nice picture of you as a younger man. You're at Yale at the time. What? What were you? Take us back. I'm interested in who you are and why you're why you're why you care so much here.
Robert Barnes [00:15:38] Sure. So I was a case. I got a scholarship to the Macaulay School, which was a prep school in Chattanooga, Tennessee, when I was a high schooler. That afforded me the opportunity to be on the radar screen of Ivy League universities, got a Coca-Cola National Scholarship out of high school and additional scholarships to attend Yale. And when I was at Yale, one of my favorite things to do was to go to the old Yale Library. And that's because back in the late 80s, early 1800s, there was a big dispute between the workers and the university at Yale. And so what the workers did is they literally carved into the sculptures inside the library, things marking elite alleys. So I thought it was just, you know, this a great place to go. And Yale can't change. It could be too expensive. So it's like, this is fantastic. But hang around the library, pick up the alumni monthly magazine. You learn how power operates when you're at Yale at multiple levels and saw that they were going to strip Yale of a. They're going to deny people need blind admissions and need based financial it. And what that was was the Ivy League and made a commitment in the 1990s, late 1980s that they would not discriminate against a student because they were poor and that if they made it into the admissions process, they would make sure the student could afford to attend Yale's tuition through a combination of scholarships and fellowships that would be available to them. They raised money from Yale alumni based on this promise, but they were floating a trial balloon that said they wanted to get rid of both, that it was too expensive to continue to honor this. They wanted more. Legacy admits those are people who are admitted because their parents or grandparents went to Yale. They wanted more donor and Métis people who got in because they made big donations to Yale. And so me and some other people started a protest group that said this shouldn't happen, and the way Yale handled it was first to act like they were going to address it. And then they basically try to bribe everybody. So they put us on committees and say, Now you're going to meet important people and we'll make sure you get into Yale Law School and everything's going to be great for you. And you work at crabbed Swaine and Moore in New York and your life is set. And I'm asking down. I'm talking to the Yale dean and saying, you know, the ADL Dean actually proposed to me is like, Don't you want your kids to benefit from these provisions? And I was like, That's the last thing on the world I want is my kid to get in over some deserving, more deserving, poorer student because I happened to get in before is like, that's exactly what's wrong. So I thought the only way to get the attention of the Yale University students and faculty and other people who are on our side on this issue and some Yale alumni as well was to leave the school in protest because nobody ever leaves Yale. Nobody ever looks, you know, gives up that opportunity, that golden parachute. But I did, and it did. It drew enough protest and public attention that Yale reversed their policy within six months and said that they would stay. They were no longer. They would not discriminate against people just because they're poor, and they would make sure there was equal access to Yale for poor kids. And they've kept that promise to this day, thanks in part to what we were able to do even as students. And so what it taught me was, you can be a 19 year old poor kid at one of the most privileged schools in the world, and if you make enough of a fuss, you might be able to change the world. So it maybe it inspired me to believe, you know, all the underdog cases that I like to take are going to are going to prevail. That's the only thing all my cases have in common is that they're all underdogs, even if they're wealthy, powerful or famous people I'm representing, I'm representing Bobby Kennedy or wesley Snipes or Ralph Nader in the cases where I'm representing them, they are still the underdog regardless of their celebrity or wealth, because they're up against the U.S. government or they're up against the New York Times, or they're up against The Associated Press or they're up against Big Pharma. And so that's the cases that sort of unite my interest and that's where it comes from, comes from just a naive belief that you can still change the world because it's the only way the world ever changes.
Chris Martenson [00:19:20] So you carried your your 19 year old idealism forward. And you know, the first place I think I came across you, you came on my radar screen was around the Covington kids. And to connect that, maybe with what's happening with Kyle Rittenhouse, not to dive too deeply into those cases, but to me that you have firsthand information, an insider sort of view on the instructive lessons that come from that in terms of what is wrong with our media. And I would have thought, let me tell you my bias, I would have thought that a multimillion dollar settlement would have cooled their jets a little bit. And I don't know that that's actually happened yet. I'm speaking of CNN in this case, moving straight from. Well, tell us about the Covington kids and how that came about and how you would connect that to CNN's behavior when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse.
Robert Barnes [00:20:06] It's the power of the press to use their superior access to a broader range of people. Louder, Mic, you might say. So basically, try to suppress this information by showing they could smear anyone, anywhere, anyplace. If you could destroy some kids. And that's all they were. Kids from Covington, Kentucky, small town bedroom community of Cincinnati, just across the river. If you could destroy them overnight, destroy their entire futures overnight, then you were sending a message of what you could do to any American that stuck their head up whose politics they didn't like for any reason. And that's also what ties in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. I had the privilege representing Kyle in a similar context, because if you could convict Kyle Rittenhouse of homicide of without self-defense in a place like Kenosha, given the facts of that case, then nobody had any self-defense rights anymore. They could. A politically corrupt prosecutor could strip you of them any time they wanted, as long as they got the right kind of jury to do so. And that's why, you know, self-defense was really it on trial for Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right to not be crushed by big media is what was on trial for all the Covington kids and the way the county kids came about as I was actually on vacation. Booster, Mexico cute little surfer tan little north of Puerto Vallarta, and I'd promised to stay off the Twitter, but unfortunately I didn't keep that promise. Foley. I just got a little bored watching the ocean waves tuned in and saw that Maggie Haberman from the New York Times was basically trying to destroy these kids lives. And was like, That was like, This is insane. So I just got agitated and put out a tweet that said, you know, if any of the kids want to sue Maggie or anyone else, I'll represent them for free. And by the time I landed back in the states, of course, the thing had blown up all over the place. And I had the privilege of representing a lot of folks in that case, a bunch of kids and a bunch of parents, and we were able to get about 90 95 percent of the people to retract and correct just with the threat of litigation. Because normally what happens is defamation lawsuits are expensive. They're difficult to win. Big Media has big lawyers right on top. They they're big insurance policies to cover them too, so they're almost never paying out of their own pocket. And the what made it different was, I want to always love the equalizer show when I was a kid. So I've always said my goal is to equalize the odds in difficult cases. And that was what we did there, as we said, just by going public and saying, we're going to go after everybody and we're going to go after people individually. We're not just going to go after CNN, we're going to go after any reporter who repeats these lies, not going to just go up to the New York Times and go after Maggie Haberman by name. Not just going to go after, you know, the some of the celebrities going to go after anyone else who try to profit off of the lies they were trying to tell and defaming and destroying these kids and ultimately got 90 95 percent of them issue retractions or corrections. Even Ilhan Omar got the inspired idea to step back from the brink of her lies that she was telling at the time. So, so and we went forward with suit, and just by doing that, you were able to sort of balance things out so that the truth about the kids came out. Even The New York Times, The Washington Post had to run corrections and retractions on the story, which they almost never do. The Associated Press and Reuters CNN had to put up a front page story that investigation clears kids of the allegations. The but you're right that even though it deterred them from going after those kids any further, it has not deterred them from trying to figure out ways to go after everyone else. When you're going after Bobby Kennedy, when you, you know, you can suspend a United States president from social media. Now we're suspending, I think yesterday they suspended a congresswoman from said from Twitter, suspended Dr. Robert Malone, one of the most well regarded scientists in the world, on these specifically on the issues of RNA vaccines. One of the greatest authorities, right before he was about to appear on Joe Rogan, they suspend him from Twitter. So there's a connection and they lie about him on top of it. They keep saying all these people are spread misinformation. It's like what misinformation they're quoting government reports. They're they're doing what you do. They cover government's own data. They report peer reviewed studies. That's it. But somehow, we're not supposed to talk about. How do you need more, either just the truly sanitized, sanctioned version, state sanctioned version of events, I mean, even Pravda didn't go that far. You know, even so, we'll see how all of it works out. But I think that a lot of these cases correlate because it's about the powerful trying to crush those without power, particularly when they stand up to power.
Chris Martenson [00:24:16] It feels particularly onerous to me, but possibly just because I've waited closer to the front lines and I'm parrying with the machine as it were. Has it always been like this or something gotten worse over the past? I don't know, 10 years or so.
Robert Barnes [00:24:29] I think it has. I mean, there are some people who are doing some political science studies that are documenting the rise of essentially a new generation of millennials that came through the colleges that came through the safe space era came through the sort of the wokeness era people who grew up in the 90s when they were little kids with their parents afraid they were going to be kidnaped and abused. And so they quit letting him play in the street. You know, everything was a play date. Things like that. So they grew up in this safe space culture from a very young age. And now they have real power that because they are the lead journalist for a lot of these places, the lead producers at CNN and MSNBC. They figured out what was clickbait ish on social media was promoting these sort of woke narratives. Now they're not popular out there in the real world, but they're popular enough on social media to get them attention, to get them validation, and they've had more and more influence. In fact, people have traced a certain terms that suddenly exploded in usage at places like the New York Times that weren't being you just ten years ago. I mean, I mean, I go back to the Obama 2012 era. I was like, that now would be seen as right wing conservatism, some of what Obama himself said. And you know, so it's it's striking where we've gone, how fast we've gotten there. But that only basically previewed the really frightening aspect, which has been the public policy responses to this pandemic over the last two years, responses we've never issued or instituted in the history of pandemics going back centuries. And so it's the core battle of civil rights and civil liberties is right. Happening right now in our lifetimes, which is kind of fun for lawyers like me, but not fun for a lot of people having to go through it.
Chris Martenson [00:26:03] Well, let's turn now to some of the things that people can do. So I get these, I get these comments all the time. I get requests, I get pleas from people. I feel them as best I can, hooking people up with experts who might be able to answer the questions. But the general questions are these help? I'm facing termination or exclusion or expulsion from a place of work or institution of learning or the military based on my not wanting to get a vaccine. These vaccines, you know, as described. So let's start there. If I'm a parent and I've got a child and a school board is saying they have to be vaccinated. What should I do? What are my options and is there anything I can file? Or is there any notification that I should be sliding into the record just in case?
Robert Barnes [00:26:49] Absolutely. There's three really different approaches that everyone should take. First is education, self-education and self-empowerment. So learn all you can about the medical issues, scientific issues and legal issues. You know the and you don't have to spend tons of time. You can go to people like Dr. Robert Malone. You can go to places like the Unity Project that has a lot of standardized, accessible materials, so you can grasp the information quickly so that you know for yourself what the situation is, because that's the first step. So many of these people, I run into judges that believe a bunch of nonsense, that I'll run into a judge that thinks that it's very rare, for example, for there to be a breakthrough infection with any of these variants concerning the vaccine when, according to the FDA's own data, that's it's not very rare anymore. And similar things like that. So no, the data, no the information, no the sourcing for it. You know, Robert Kennedy's book on Anthony Fauci is a great, excellent source. Malone. Dr. Robert Malone is always a great, excellent source. Alex Berenson has been a very good source on this. His book Pandemic is good on This. He's Substack is very good. So there's a lot of people, Stephen Kersh, there's other people providing a lot of data and information and analysis of it. Your channel as well, of course. So people should go to those places, learn as much information as they can because the first step of self-empowerment is self education. The second is one of the things that people are really figuring out is going to board meetings like these school board meetings making FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act request or their equivalent under state law. Usually, it's some form of sunshine law, open records law. You're entitled to a lot of that information. The good work that's being done by Del Bigtree and Aaron Syrie going after the FDA and CDC just to document what happened has been very revealing. You know, emails about Anthony Fauci trying to mis shape the agenda and information he knew about where maybe this virus really came from initially in his efforts to cover it up that came out through FOIA data FOI request. So know what your your rights to information about what your governmental agency is up to. And then third, know how you can push back, whether that's going to a meeting and being able to get on to be able to present your arguments to the board. Many of those meetings have gone viral. Because they're often they're videotape, they go out there and they show the school board that the MSNBC's version of reality is not the actual only version of reality that exists and that by itself is important, but also often you can actually persuade people to say, hold on a second. Then the way you can exercise your legal rights varies, so it depends on the setting or the circumstance. But often you have a right of religious accommodation to be exempt from the vaccine. Any vaccine mandate a right of medical accommodation. I believe the ADA laws apply. We design the Americans with Disabilities Act so that we would never repeat what happened during the HIV crisis, where people panicked, you know, they were firing grandmas who were taking care of their ill sons grandsons because they thought that person could spread HIV. Certainly Anthony Fauci might have said some statements that were a little not so proven true over time about how you could get HIV. And so he wrote the laws. The AIDS laws say that if somebody even if this includes public accommodations, this includes state and local governments. This includes private employers, it says if you think someone is somehow physically or medically handicapped. And that's what a lot of them are saying. When they say you're not vaccinated, they think the person is physically or medically handicapped. You can't discriminate against them unless you go through an individualized process, make reasonable accommodations and you can only deny them employment benefits if you can prove business necessity. And when you have the easy alternatives of testing, when there's the data out there that the vaccine isn't the most effective means in all instances to prevent transmission. When you have that information out, there are many of these people are employers. Public accommodations elsewhere are not able to meet the legal standard to justify any discrimination against you. So it's knowing your rights is the first stage to be able to assert your rights. And there's many stages at which you can assert those rights, whether it's a school board or private employer or governmental mandate. And then there's lawyers like me, and there's good projects like the Unity Project that are gathering information, gathering resources so that you can be effective fighting back and protecting your civil liberties in this circumstance.
Chris Martenson [00:30:53] Now, one of the things that blew my mind when I heard you speak out in Phoenix, which I alluded to is, is this idea of religious accommodation very naive of me? I thought that must have meant somebody very ultra conservative, Orthodox, something something that means, you know, they really are setting the religious beliefs. Actually, that's not what this can take us through that I think you call the title seven. What what is what is the religious accommodation that are available and why do they exist?
Robert Barnes [00:31:18] So the religious accommodations about protecting your First Amendment right of religious expression from state intrusion and also protecting against religious discrimination, either in places of public accommodation or public employment or private employment? And the goal is that your religious beliefs can't be used against you, and most people assume the word religious belief means organized religion. The New York governor made that mistake in miscue, in fact, because we don't want to discriminate on your beliefs. Atheist can assert a religious exemption. I say that really. What if you understood the law the best way to translate it to the ordinary person is a religious accommodation is an accommodation of personal conscience. It's is. Do you be based on a belief of personal conscience? Not want to take this particular drug? And that's what I find. I mean, like, for example, to me, informed consent is part of a person's. I know many people for whom the fact that this vaccine is being mandated against informed consent violates their conscience. They say, I don't want what happened in Nuremberg to ever happen again. We established good moral legal principles. And I see this moral principle being violated, a moral principle that we said was so important we executed people for violating it after the fact because the Nuremberg code didn't exist at the time in which they violated it. But we said it was so important morally conscientiously that we could hang people who violated it. That could be an example of a religious accommodation because it's a deeply, sincerely held moral belief about life and death itself. And that's where people often think you don't have to have permission from your pastor. You don't even have to be in a church. You don't even have to be a deist. You can be an atheist. You can be an agnostic. You can be of any kind of belief structure. Vegetarians have asserted this in certain contexts recognized in the UK, by the way, on this precise question and recognized in some other jurisdictions, so it can be any deeply held moral code that it can't be something like, well, like somebody who says, Well, I need to keep my tattoo because to me, it's real important. That's not what they mean by religious accommodation. Unless that tattoo was a part of your tribe's tradition that identified who you are and your connection to your ancestors, then it would be part of such a tradition. So that's an illustration, an illustrative example, but it's under Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act as no private employer place of public accommodation can discriminate against you based on your beliefs and unless they can prove business necessity for doing so. And the reality is, with the ease of testing as an alternative, they can never prove. And with the problems of vaccines preventing transmissibility, they can never prove business necessity in court. And whenever any of these pandemic issues has gone to an actual evidentiary hearing. The people demanding some public health intervention have lost because the evidence simply doesn't support them, whether it's mask mandates or vaccine made, it's all right.
Chris Martenson [00:34:03] It's a matter of conscience. I think I understand the I love the idea that you don't have to be a deist all this. So for me, it might be a matter of conscience for me to say as a parent. I find it unconscionable that you would ask a child with a zero risk to take some higher risk so that somebody else has an unprovable improved risk profile. That, to me, is a matter that's conscience. I can't. I can't do that. So would that apply?
Robert Barnes [00:34:29] Absolutely. It's anything like that because it's just things that go right to your core that you know, the and in almost everybody I know who objects to the vaccine mandate, it's because it goes right to their core of something. They deeply they hold deeply true. And that's what religious accommodations are meant to protect, and only that employers are limited in how they can ask questions about it because pretty soon they start discriminating against you because they don't like your particular religious beliefs. And that itself is retaliation and discrimination under the law and punishable under the law. And so that the religious accommodation is the most robust protection in the law from these vaccine mandates at a a wide range of contexts. It can even apply in certain cases to school vaccine mandates that are coming down the pipeline. So the it's very important that people understand what their rights are and they can read Biden administration's own EEOC manual on religious discrimination that shows how broad and expansive this right is.
Chris Martenson [00:35:26] Now, let's imagine I'm wondering what the remedy is or what the penalties are in this case. So let's imagine I'm a CEO. I violate Title Seven. I violate the religious exemption. It's found in a court of law that I violated that. Can I hide behind my company? Will my will my insurance cover this? Who's liable?
Robert Barnes [00:35:44] There's two different issues that potentially the companies always on the hook. Whether the individual can also be on the hook varies somewhat like I'm suing Tyson Foods because their vaccine mandate put people on unpaid leave even if you had a religious accommodation or medical accommodation for it. So they were basically firing people that had worked there for over 20 years. Loyal employees. And we're bringing suit in Tennessee. We're going to be bringing suit and a bunch of jurisdictions across the country in the coming weeks. And Tyson Foods defense was that they were a federal actor. They didn't want to be sued in state court, so they removed the case, said we're really doing this on the behalf of the federal government. What they did not realize is by doing so, they not only made their corporation liable as a federal government agency would be, which because there's the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is much stronger even than Title seven of the Civil Rights Act, because it says you have to have compelling governmental interest in narrowly tailored means and all these restrictions before you can discriminate against religious accommodations. Also other but it also applies the First Amendment, other Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, all of which are implicated by these vaccine mandates because it's invasion of your privacy, your right to bodily integrity, all of which has been previously established by U.S. Supreme Court law going back over a century. And so in this context, if you admit you're a federal actor, not only are you now subject to a whole bunch of different liabilities under the law, but you're also now individually liable. So we're going to be looking at suing individual corporate executives because what they don't understand is that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for example, any individual can be held accountable and has to pay damages and has to pay attorney's fees and has to pay costs. And I don't think they realize that. And if you look at in the case of the Tyson case, you're talking about thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. So, you know, potentially there are millions and millions and millions that they could be personally liable for. That insurance might not even be obligated to cover. So, you know, those stock stock options might it might have to be sold pretty quick. So the I think some of these CEOs have relied on corporate counsel. That's conflicted because also what's happened here is a lot of the employers I advised took the good advice of not imposing any vaccine. They saw this was just from a legal risk perspective, like whenever you think about the vaccine, whenever you think about the pandemic, we're not taking the legal risk of being on the hook for this because the other risk employers take is because they're forcing this. The EEOC admitted it last year. Now they've stepped back from admitting it publicly. But what when an employer forces it, it may be grounds for the person to sue if they suffer any injury because of what they were forced to do because it became a condition of their employment. So like right now, you can't sue Big Pharma, the drug companies or anyone else related to the vaccines. It's one of the legal problems that I have with it. However, you may be able to sue your employer if they required you to get it. And that doesn't mean that that damage can be disability damages. Death damages. Who knows how much that can be given what's leaked out from different places about this? We still don't know, as the FDA itself says, the full safety risk profile of these vaccines. If the worst case scenario happens, that you could have a bunch of corporations and potentially because of their federal active role individually responsible, you might have a human resources person not realize they've subjected themselves to bankruptcy risk by forcing this vaccine on people. Pretending that they're doing so in the name of the federal government creating more risk for them legally than they would have otherwise. So that's where the there is potential risk for everybody, and I think a lot of people are making bad decisions because you have corporate law firms that have stock or ties to Big Pharma and they frankly should not be advising the what they're doing is are telling one group of clients, you're going to have to force this on people to enrich another group of clients. They really had a conflict of interest and should have given no advice on this. But I think a bunch of lawyers are going to face legal malpractise suits down the road because they're going to have some employers say, hold on a second. You told me I had to do this and it turned out you had a conflict of interest. You didn't fully disclose to me because this is making billions of profits for Pfizer and others. And Pfizer is the most criminally sanctioned drug company in the history of the world. So they might be like, you know, having a convicted drug dealer tell you, Don't worry, I'm going to give you something safe now. And I think a lot of people don't understand how much risk they've created for themselves because they've been listening to MSNBC too much.
Chris Martenson [00:40:05] Now, I hope you get to advise more of these corporations because certainly I would be exceedingly concerned if I was a CEO and I was in a position of saying, I'm going to have to enforce this because when and maybe I'm just not close enough to it, but the way I read it, Robert, the government is sort of applying pressure, but they haven't really provided clarity. It's I don't feel like there's the protection. They're just saying you have to mandate this. But last I checked, the mandate is not a law and you're only protected under the law. So when somebody is mandated to do something and they enforce that mandate in the condition of of their job, whether I don't care if they're on a school board, they're a university administrator, they're in a company. What protection do they actually have? It feels to me. I don't. I don't understand what is what is enforcing a mandate do for you as an individual or a corporation.
Robert Barnes [00:40:55] I think what they don't understand is and under appreciate and have often been given bad legal advice on is they seem to believe that they will be as immune as the drug companies are. And that's not what the law says. The law doesn't give private employers immunity for following, and they can read through the mandates. The mandates don't do it, either. The supposed mandates, which again, are not laws, they're just the Biden administration declaring something. And they often have loopholes buried in them because they're they're built within every single one of these mandates says that nobody should enforce the mandate on a vaccine on someone who has a religious or medical accommodation. It says no one should require it if it would violate the ADA. So the government is always going to have their loopholes, and private employers don't realize that there's the MSNBC interpretation of the mandate. And then there's what all the loopholes and footnotes and exceptions actually say. And they and they protect the federal government at the expense of the private employer in the private citizen. That's one of the big problems with all of this. It's like the private individual who takes the vaccine has to bear almost all the risk of it legally and medically, with the limited exceptions. But what they've also done is put private employers and places of public accommodation, restaurants. The rest are all going to be subject to sued on this because they didn't read the fine print. The fine print said, Yeah, you could do a vaccine, however, and mandate it, and we're recommending it or we're ordering it, but we're only ordering it to the extent it complies with other law. And that's that was, you know, how they buried in it was like having a contract. It's really unenforceable. If you read the second sentence after the first one and they don't, they don't appreciate that and they're going to be subject to massive litigation for years to come. Anybody who forces this on people unwittingly and without following informed consent principles.
Chris Martenson [00:42:37] Well, let's take this now to the idea of early treatment or treatment in general, which is a big sore subject. You know, my Twitter handle is Chris Early Treatment Martenson, right? I've been I've been doing what I can to sort of push this forward, and I work with the FLCCC doctors and I'm a huge believer in early treatment, particularly where we have things that are completely safe. So the downside is zero or close to zero as you can get in the world of drugs. And the upside is potentially not dying. So it's very asymmetrical. And yet it's been fought and fought and rethought and all of that. And then I'm looking at like the cases of Paul Merrick against and Tara and my interpretation of that, which I'd love to get your angle on is that it looks to me like what these hospital administrators are doing are saying. There's a set of procedures that we only want our doctors to perform because those are contained under something called the Prep Act. If you could explain to people what that is because they're excluded from all liability as long as they're following official rules. And of course, the official rules don't include early treatments that actually help people and save people. So I feel like the incentive system, if I'm reading it right, is for hospitals to apply a certain set of treatments, not because they're the best or provably the best for the patient, but because they offer the most money and the least amount of liability exposure for the hospitals. Is that accurate? Possibly.
Robert Barnes [00:43:49] Yeah, that's precisely accurate. And you know, I was telling people early on if I was a doctor or if I was a lawyer advising a doctor that their best advice is to for themselves, personally, professionally and financially is to say wonderful things about the vaccine and make sure people get as many people as possible. Get it and not to encourage them to have alternative treatments to the vaccine. Not to encourage them not to get the vaccine because if they turned out their advice is wrong about the vaccine or early treatments, they can't be sued under those grounds. If, on the other hand, they tell a person not to take the vaccine or they encourage early treatments in lieu thereof and something goes sideways, then they're fully subject to suit. So there's been these completely distorted disincentive system to actually do competent ethical medicine based on individualized risk, because that's the other thing that's happening. The FDA and CDC are approving drugs without giving an individualized, stratified risk profile. I mean, is the same risk for a four year old, the same as an eighty three year old with four comorbid diseases. We know that it's not, and yet they're not being told that. And the same is true of our hospitals and doctors, and that's where a lot of the ivermectin disputes have happened. And what's interesting is they people been tracking. Still, to this day, the media will highlight when it fails. But to this day, more people have won going to court, challenging a hospital's refusal to give ivermectin than have lost. Of note, almost everybody who's one the person who got the ivermectin treatment survived, bounced back and was out of the hospital soon thereafter. By contrast, the people who didn't win disproportionately died. So maybe that's a coincidence. Sure, the FDA would tell me it's a big coincidence under the circumstances, but it raises. But it's important evidence for people to raise before judge. If you bring before a judge and you say, Hey, Judge, there's 10 colleagues of yours that have already ruled on this issue. The seven that said yes, make sure this person can get ivermectin. Lift the three. That said no, I'm going to defer to the hospital. Two of the three died. Judges are going to pay attention to that because they don't want to be on the hook for somebody's death and you're going to start winning more and more and more. And hospitals are going to have to start forcing different accounting to be taking place because what people don't know is that unfortunately, hospitals established their policies for according to their financial risk and financial reward. And right now, all of the entire system says only do what the CDC or Anthony Fauci's latest advices, which of course, varies from week to week. But whatever that is, that's what you have to follow, not your own medical understanding, and especially Fauci doesn't know your patient. So, I mean, that's the biggest problem I have with that. It's not almost all of medicines should be individualized. And what we've done is we've stripped out all these vaccine mandates. Many of the courts are pointing out this is not individualized. This is a one size fits all sledgehammer that makes no sense. Something like medicine, by definition, should be individualized based on the individual. One person could be six years old and be more at risk from COVID than an 80 year old under unique circumstances. It's not going to be generally true, but that, but that doctor should be the one to say this was what might work. This is what might not work, not be hamstrung and handcuffed by rules designed to be disincentives through a one size fits all sledgehammer system that is denying people competent professional medical care.
Chris Martenson [00:47:07] All right. So we have we have college students returning right now. I know personally some who are in this exact situation, which is, oh, you cannot. You're only welcome back if you've had your booster. So they've gone down to this booster line. Is there anything this person could? Let's say they say I got screwed. I got to get the booster. But is there some way? Is there some piece of paper they can handle, like their hospital administrator saying, I'm taking this under duress as a matter of coercion and I hereby, by taking it, I do not. I don't know what the legal language is, but I don't hereby abrogate or give up my title seven rights and I'm putting you on notice. Is there anything they could just even scratch out and hand in that would be helpful, potentially if something does go wrong?
Robert Barnes [00:47:43] Absolutely. The way I see it is is a three fold approach. I advise people whether it's an employer, educational institution, anyone else? First, ask for the policy. Often they don't have a policy, by the way, because they're trying to hide liability and they want to later say, Well, we didn't really force you to do this. So, you know, get a copy of the actual policy. See what the fine print says. Secondly, in the educational context, you have a right of religious accommodation, a right of medical accommodation. There have already been two lawsuits brought against educational institutions one in Louisiana, one in Michigan, with the Michigan case went up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In both cases, the federal court said that you cannot force a student who has a religious objection to the vaccine to be to take the vaccine. And so the so you've already you've got good favorable precedent on your side on that precise issue. And then third is what you note, if for whatever reason, that doesn't work for you or isn't available to you, then absolutely document on the record that you are only taking this vaccine because you are being compelled and coerced to do so that it will. You would not take it as part of your free will that you still don't have full, accurate, adequate information to make an informed choice and that this is against your informed consent, not with your informed consent. So it's clear on the record what took place.
Chris Martenson [00:48:56] Now, speaking of which, you know, I know we didn't exactly get to a definition of the Prep Act. Maybe we could get their cases relevant, but I'm wondering about the liability in this case because I know people who've gone. Say to their OBGYN, there are women of childbearing age or they're thinking about becoming pregnant or they are pregnant and said, Should I get this vaccine? And the doctor said yes, they've been proven safe and effective. So I went to the provider labeling that existed at the time, which is still true to this day, the day of this recording, which is early 2022. And the section under there simply reads there's not enough information to to gauge of safety for pregnant women. That's actually what's in the provider label, which is ostensibly the most comprehensive label that we have with the most information. They say explicitly. There's not enough information. So for an OB-GYN who goes out of their way to say yes, this is safe. If it later turns out not to be safe. And it said so in the label, but they communicated otherwise. Are they still protected by the Prep Act?
Robert Barnes [00:49:53] Yes. I mean, the Prep Act is so bad that if you go to your local CVS to get your vaccine shot and you trip and fall because they decided not to clean up, you know, aisle number four, you can't sue them on or slip and fall purposes because it's connected to the administration of a vaccine. I mean, people have even tried to argue that car accidents are concerned. A vaccine somehow immunize that person who was negligent driving the car. That's how bad it's been. And the courts have gone out of their way, and I've always told people, well, never trust a drug that has immunity from suit in case somebody, the drug makers are lying to me about it. I just don't trust that kind of drug. A drug may turn out to be wonderful, may turn out to be great. But if it is wonderful and great, you don't need immunity from suit. It's like a criminal. It's like someone who's being wants to say, Hey, I want a plea agreement that gives me complete immunity in advance before I confess my crimes. Like the last episode of the series Shield, you know you shouldn't trust that person hasn't doesn't have anything to hide. The chances are there's information of a bunch of crimes they want to confess without accountability now. And that's kind of what's happening here. We have no legal accountability because of the scope and scale of the Prep Act. It's one of the reasons for the game playing that's occurring in terms of we have an FDA approved vaccine, but it's not the one that's available and being administered to people and the the contention of many people, including Jordan Schachter with the dossier on Substack and others. And it was our contention from the great from the get go with Bobby Kennedy and Merrill Ness and others that children's health defense is that if you dug into it, the reason they're doing it is that they have complete Prep Act immunity as long as what's being administered is under the emergency use authorization label. They also will have immunity once it's on the kids list, but it's not clear how much immunity they have if they're neither emergency use authorized nor children authorized vaccines. And so that gave them a powerful incentive to say, yes, we're going to license this drug, but that's not the one we're going to administer. And the FDA just said they're legally distinct, medically interchangeable, but legally, this state and what they mean by that is they can't be sued in case they turned out to be completely negligent in how they produced it, or if it doesn't actually produce the outcomes that they promised. People can go back and watch Rachel Maddow or our own president said about how this vaccine would completely stop even the possibility of transmission. That's a statement that in traditionally, if somebody made that statement, it turned out false or someone like an OB-GYN made false statements to a pregnant woman and turned out false. Normally you'd get sued, but if it has any 10 even tangential tied to a vaccine under the existing laws under the Prep Act, as long as their emergency use authorization, it's not, and they're on the or they're on the kids list. There's nothing you can do, sadly,
Chris Martenson [00:52:46] in that prep, that's pandemic response emergency.
Robert Barnes [00:52:51] Something what's the I forget the last word, but I mean, they passed it about 10 years ago and it was supposed to be limited in its application that but of course, we've seen what happened with people, misapplied it across the board and now people face individual risk.
Chris Martenson [00:53:07] I did see somewhere in there, it said, unless the only place where you have a liability gets taken away is if you knowingly. If you and willfully did something, so so now let's let's talk very quickly, if we could. A lot of people think it smells a tiny bit that we, the people will not see some of the Pfizer safety data in the FDA filing until maybe as late as 2096. And that's not just Pfizer wanting that the FDA is slow roll in that whole thing. How suspicious should we be of of that particular situation?
Robert Barnes [00:53:38] It's another instance where if we could have confidence, I mean, it's like censorship. When I see censorship, I become skeptical of the censor because if it's really misinformation, then you answer that in the court of public opinion and you don't have to be scared of misinformation because you answer it with accurate information. It's usually accurate information you want to censor because you don't like people knowing the truth when it conflicts with your institutional interest or public narrative. And I think here in this context, we have definite examples of that by the refusal of the FDA, the time we produce basic information, response to elementary FOIA request and asking for these 75 year delays. I represent a whistleblower whose information was reviewed by the British Medical Journal that determined that there was a lot of things that went wrong in those Pfizer clinical trials. You have to wonder whether that's part of the reason they're wanting to sit on. It does do a lot of those records confirm her allegations and accusations as to what she witnessed and saw, which was basically a complete joke of a clinical trial that couldn't meet any medically scientific standard. And if that was the case there, how broad and widespread was it? Is that what they're hiding? They're clearly hiding something, and they don't need 75 years to if they need 75 years to disclose the information and they should have taken 75 years before they approve the vaccine. So the that's my concern is that there should be correspondence between length of time. Purportedly, they reviewed this information and know it's why it backs their position of its safety and efficacy. But clearly, they're worried that if ordinary people see it, they might come to a different conclusion. Indeed, Dr. Robert Malone was suspended from Twitter, from just reading, from the Pfizer clinical study. That's all he did. And here's what it says. By the way, here's here's the chart and they're like, You're out of here. The it's like, OK, I mean, all about Bobby Kennedy got kicked off of Instagram because he was just quoting the vaccine adverse event reporting system that was put in place for precisely this reason of making sure that was independently accessible information about what the risks were from the vaccine. Of course, we don't medically know with certainty whether those risks being being reported or are caused by the vaccine. But we do know from prior studies that those reports tend to underestimate the amount of negative consequences from a drug, not overestimate. And we're seeing collateral evidence of that from what the insurance company executive sort of blurted out about excess deaths in a particular state. So within a particular age group, that might be the most at risk for this particular controversial drug. And so I think we have a drug that had to had to redefine the word vaccine in order to fit it to relabeling a vaccine for the first time in a century. So the Prep Act is clearly overly broad and overly expansive, and this has highlighted the need to reform those laws. Just like it's highlighted the need for many great laws that have passed in the past year about not allowing employers to mandate vaccines, not allowing them to force things on kids without the parents informed consent. So on and so forth. But it's highlighted the the issues present that have always been there. They're just coming to a clear confrontation for people to witness and understand. And luckily, a lot of good people are stepping into the arena and making a difference.
Chris Martenson [00:56:48] I agree, and I feel the winds shifting even as we're recording this. So an important point you made, I want to hear again is is so there's right and wrong. There's legal, there's illegal. There's what the courts come up with. But the court of public opinion matters. Judges are people. You said, I'm in it to win it. So what can we, the people out here, do to help the court of public opinion? And what do you mean by that? What is the court of public opinion, really?
Robert Barnes [00:57:12] So basically what happens is every judge pays attention to what's happening with the media, what's happening with various, you know, people, their neighbors, their friends there. And so when they get constant continuous information that questions some institutional narrative, they often will pay more attention than they otherwise would when they see the public really enraged. So all these public protests are good. All the activity on social media is good. That contest these institutional narratives is good. All the sharing of links and information with as many people as possible is effective and important and good, and no one should ever underestimate it because I like to remind people that when in Jacobson, they said you could be fined a small amount if you didn't take a vaccine in response to an actual dangerous epidemic, much more dangerous than this smallpox. They established this scary precedent because that case itself was then used to justify for sterilizations of County Buck. And in those two cases were used to justify forced detention camps based on whether your grandfather was born in a particular country. People who lost everything. US rights, property rights, religious rights, political expression, rights, family associations. I mean, it was just horrendous. And how but how that happened also was there was nobody protesting. There was nobody in the streets fighting for any buck. There was nobody. And even in the courts, her lawyer wasn't really her lawyer. Her lawyer was working for the other side. And so the that's where it matters. The court of public opinion impacts every decision maker because in the end, we're not really governed by law or governed by men, and the law is only as good as those men are and men and women. And if we are going to step into that breach and meet the challenge, it's going to depend on ordinary people making sure their voices are heard by those with the power to make a decision. That's the power of the gavel, the power of the gun or the power of the pen or the power of the purse. And they all ultimately listen to ordinary, everyday people. And already we've made bigger differences in fighting back against these mandates than any fight back against mandates in history. And for people who don't know, I mean, you know, a few people know and people who watch your program may know, but I mean, this goes back centuries. There's, you know, debates about this going back to the middle 1800s in the United Kingdom, when the public health authorities had a bad idea and some bad strategies, and it backfired. And the only reason it changed for a period of time was a bunch of ordinary people fought back. The same is true here. The only way this craziness stops is ordinary people fighting back in every legal means they have available to them.
Chris Martenson [00:59:39] So January 23rd, I'm just going to put out 2022. There's going to be a defeat. The mandates march in Washington, D.C. I want to put a plug in for that because I think it is important that we stand up. The court of public opinion is really important. It's important for two reasons. One, so the judges can find out, and so other Americans can just see that we're not alone or they're not alone, or that this is a real issue, but it goes way beyond. To me, this isn't a fight any longer about public health. Right, if there was a compelling public health argument, it just got shredded with Omicron in the last couple of weeks, right? Because we now know, according to Dutch Data UK Data Ontario data, that people who are double vaccinated are actually more likely to catch and transmit the virus than people who are unvaccinated. So we no longer have. The public health mandate is now down to what really I think can only be said as we don't want to overwhelm the hospitals with Omicron is also very much less lethal and morbid creating than the other earlier variants. So the whole narrative is just fallen apart. And so I think this is a critical moment in time for people to stand up and really push because because if things are wobbling again a little bit here and I'd like to see it wobble in the right direction.
Robert Barnes [01:00:46] Absolutely. There's been a breach in the dam and now is the time to put as much pressure as possible for the dam to break because they thought this would never happen. So few people fought back, even as they kept expanding the vaccine schedule for kids more and more and more. And there are more and more people were like, Why do we need 65 or 80 do or whatever the latest number of drugs
Chris Martenson [01:01:06] is to Hep B vaccine within six hours? I'm like, I'm a bad parent if I need that vaccine.
Robert Barnes [01:01:13] Exactly. And so more people have woken up than ever before and are fighting back because this was really about governments establishing a precedent that they own your body. Because if you don't control what goes into your own body, then you don't own your own body. And if you don't own your own body, what do you own and do you own anything at that point? I mean, it's the great reset put into real action of you're not. You're going to own nothing, not even your own body, and you'll be happy for it, according to Dear Clause. So the so I think that's the ordinary people fighting back all around the globe. It has has been the one defining thing that has really limited and constricted their ability to pull this off. I mean, a lot of Republican politicians were asleep at the wheel six months ago. There weren't a lot of proposals to curb this. They were what were they doing? They were waiting to see how the tea leaves would blow and once they saw, oh, hold on a second. This is not popular. These ideas are not, you know, coercing and forcing this on kids and forcing this on workers. Forcing this on anybody, anywhere, any place, any time for any reason is not acceptable. But as you know, as people have witnessed the limitations of this experimental drug that we've, in my view, mislabeled the vaccine by the FDA, who said to change the definition of it, to label as such is also improving. But that's only because people are listening to independent voices and sharing the information from those independent voices. Imagine if just the we were in an ABC, NBC, CBS world of 1950, most people would still probably be paranoid, but you know, triple Mask. hiding in their closets, waiting for Fauci to give them permission to go outside and even walk the dog. And so it's because of ordinary people fighting back that we live in a very different world, and it's only because they will continue to fight back that we can continue to have that different world.
Chris Martenson [01:03:00] I completely agree it is the two edged sword of the social media. Yes, they're able to control and contain and shadow ban and censor and do all of those things. And yet we still are able to find each other. And by the way, you know, as I was first unearthing my first pandemic alert was January 23rd, 2020, because I was just reading the tea leaves saw it, you know, soon as Wuhan shut down, I was like, OK, this is serious, I'm going to have to talk about this. But within a month, I'd managed to find people like Peter Corry and Paul Maric, and at the edges, people were figuring this out like that. So that whole distributed model of intelligent human sort of rallying around and using their intelligence to figure something out that was really fast breaking showed that our institutions are not only slow because they are, but they're corrupt. And that all really got exposed. And I think that's that's good. I think that needed to happen. I just got my my twenty one point eight percent yearly increase in my health insurance bill for my family, for, you know, and I'm it's just it's a broken system. So I'm actually glad that now it's broken enough that people can look at and go, Yeah, you know what? Not only can we do better, but we really gotta we need. It's time, it's time.
Robert Barnes [01:04:08] Oh, absolutely. I mean, it's like the taverns of Colonial America that helped feed the American Revolution, that people were able to spread an independent story, an independent narrative outside of the controls of the confined corridors of power. And that helped change and revolutionize the world for a freedom movement. Freedom just has a way that you can put up all the gates you want. Freedom is going to find a way to get to people, and freedom has continued to do so and will continue to do so because ordinary people continue to will be willing and ready to carry Paul Revere's message of liberty further and further every day.
Chris Martenson [01:04:42] Well, I love it. I love how you connected to the Great Reset because to me, all this COVID stuff is just, you can, I feel, is part of a larger agenda. It's very easy for me to connect that give me enough time, and I can. I can show you that. Well, listen, they're not even shy about it, Robert. It's up on their website. I'm this kind of guy. If you say you're going to do something and then it happens, I'm going to think you might have done it right. So they've been very clear about what they're up to. And of course, you mentioned and hinted at. A climate emergency that might follow if we're not careful. One emergency will just lead to the next will lead to the next will lead to the next, but they're all headed in the same direction, which is less for me, more for them. That's how I'm interpreting all of this.
Robert Barnes [01:05:17] So thank you for that. Absolutely. I mean, that's why it's the seminal. It's probably the biggest debate and biggest decisions are going to be made governing the future of individual freedom since World War Two. I mean, it's really of that equivalent level that we're facing and confronting, and it's even scarier because almost all the governments are in cahoots this time against us. And that's but it's even more empowering to see so many people fight back from all across the political spectrum, all across the social spectrum, all across backgrounds, all across the globe. People have fought back, and that's what gives me faith in the future of humanity's ordinary, everyday people's willingness and readiness to fight back against this tyrannical attempt to usurp our liberties that we're constitutionally given to us centuries ago.
Chris Martenson [01:06:04] And I agree so much. And if we look at the pattern of this, we're really talking about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States, we're talking about UK, Europe, right? Interestingly, in my newspaper, I never read about how bad Africa is doing because they're not struggling with this at all. India not struggling, right? Vietnam not really struggling, right? So when you look at this is really the only countries that are wrapped around the axle of COVID at this point in time and COVID policies and the inability to have a logical, coherent set of public health policies tells me it has nothing to do with public health. First off, we've established that, so we've established it has to be about something. It can't just be about money, although that's a powerful motivator. But there are people who are seeking to reset. The terms and conditions under which we pretty well did pretty well for the last few hundred years, I think there ought to be a robust discussion about that and we shouldn't just shrug and go, Oh, well, I guess that's how it is, right, without really thinking about it because the consequences as I see him could be pretty bad.
Robert Barnes [01:07:03] Oh, no doubt. You mean you look at just what Bill Gates has been doing for a dozen years, and he's been giving the road map of what how he thinks the future should look. And he's been working with people like Bloomberg and George Soros and Oprah and a whole range David Rockefeller and a range of other people to help create that world. And it's a world in which we don't get to vote. You know, I mean, Bill Gates believes in it fine run for president when he knows that ain't never going to happen. I mean, you know, he likes to power around with people like Jeffrey Epstein. That's not real popular these days in the ordinary public. So I think that and Bill Gates, a guy, you look under the hood, you're usually you don't like what you see, the more you look. But this is a guy who was talked about, you know, the future being a, you know, a physical chip in your body. That's all your medical records, your personal identifying information, your met, your financial information that can be turned off remotely at any time if you somehow act badly. That's the ultimate method of control. It's people that for whom money is just a mechanism of control and they're not doing it for out of financial greed. They're doing it out of greed. For power out of COVID is covetousness for power itself. And that's why they pose the risk they face because someone like Bill Gates has spent the better part of a decade doing everything from, you know, helping by public health authorities, literally around the globe, the number two contributor, the World Health Organization. But is it really a coincidence that the scary models about these viruses came out of two institutions Imperial College in London and another one out of Seattle that have deep ties to Bill Gates Foundation funds? Maybe not. Is it a coincidence that his foundation has managed to make money or while giving it away over the last decade? Maybe not. And so it's I want a world that's directed by what our constitutional ancestors get gifted in birth to us and gave to us, not the world that Bill Gates wants for us. And that's what the future is all about.
Chris Martenson [01:08:51] Now, now I'm, you know, this part is definitely not going out in public. I'll tell you this. So I researched this pretty far down and what I was really concerned with all the way back in June of 2020, I was saying, Hey, journalist, you ought to be asking about the PPRRA Polly basic base. If you're an insert cleavage site which gave all the gain of function to this otherwise innocuous virus, this little strip of 12 amino acids sorry for amino acids, 12 nucleotides. This thing was this is this is really critical. And then I find out just a couple of months ago that there's only two places in nature that that exact sequence is found. One. It's a little known bacterium, and the second is in 18 Moderna patents, the only place we find that clip of of instructional material. And by the way, those patents were first filed in 2013.
Robert Barnes [01:09:40] Yeah. I mean, what's amazing about Moderna in general is here you have a company that's never had a successful drug in history, and now they're now there, have a novel vaccine for a novel virus that comes from a family of viruses that's never had it, that we've never had a successful vaccine for in history. I mean, I mean, the information that the media has kept people blind it about has been striking. But I think, yeah, I think you make it. You know what I mean is Nelly Gates was hiding it. I mean, he does, you know, event to a one in October 2019 to say, Hey, maybe a coronavirus pandemic is coming and more like that.
Chris Martenson [01:10:15] Maybe, maybe this time we have one.
Robert Barnes [01:10:16] Yeah, exactly. And you know, he's getting the military on board, and what it really was was a test run. How will people respond, how people reacted to positions of power? Here's where our weak links are. Here's how we need to fix those. And they did a mighty good job of it. I mean, to their credit, I mean, the old saying, you know, why do we have a criminal justice system that seems to create a permanent criminal class? Well, no crime, no police. How do you make people feel good about the state spending a lot of money on, you know, having police go through your neighborhood every day? Well, they're there to keep those bad criminals away. And you know, if you want to keep the war machine going, you need to find an enemy. And if you can't find an enemy, create one. But what they figured out is that the greatest way to restrain liberty overnight is to say scary, scary virus, because then people will forfeit their liberties from their own family, from their own friends, from their own intimate partners. And that's what we're witnessing the terrifying stretch to which government can go in lifetime.
Chris Martenson [01:11:10] Yeah, absolutely. So we are at the end of our time, I could talk with you forever. And I know we're going to be talking on your program coming up soon. So I'll direct people to that in the link under here as well. So that is at Viva Barnes Law Dot Locals. Dot com. Is that right?
Robert Barnes [01:11:30] That's it, exactly. That's where we put up everything. And for people who I've put up some free exemplars, so you know, a lot of people can't afford to obviously hire legal counsel for handling a lot of this. You can go there is no copyright, nothing else, and you can copy and paste whatever you want. Thousands of people have used it all across the country to success already. So you can go to the board, copy and paste it borrowed from it however you want. If you, if you or a loved one is in some jam, either, whether it's an educational institution of public accommodation or employment, you can use that to assert your rights, and it's worked for about 80 85 percent of the people. And for those that don't and we look at representing them where and when we can't. But the fight has just begun, and I think you're right that the wind is on our side.
Chris Martenson [01:12:12] Fantastic. Well. Well, I can't even believe it went where it went anyway. That was I learned a lot. I constantly quote the comedian Lily Tomlin, who said, "As cynical as I am, I find I can't keep up." You know,
Robert Barnes [01:12:30] yes, no doubt.
Chris Martenson [01:12:31] No doubt cynical before, but then Fauci and the NIH really, really put some afterburners on.
Robert Barnes [01:12:36] No doubt about that at all.
Chris Martenson [01:12:38] Well, I mean, I'm just constructed the way Robert. I could not kill somebody for fun or profit. It just wouldn't. That's just not. I'm not built that way, but apparently there are people who will do that.
Robert Barnes [01:12:47] Oh yeah, oh yeah. And especially that the gates world, I mean, that world really just comes out of eugenics and in their minds, they're doing it for the good of society. But I mean, like, Gates can't help but smile every time he talks about how many people are going to die. You know, I mean, there's just the guys. There's something not all right with that guy.
Chris Martenson [01:13:05] Yeah, yeah, I totally get it. Well, listen, thank you so much for your time today. And besides that, viva barked Barnes. Sorry, Viva Barnes Law Dot Locals dot com. Besides there, is there any other way people follow you?
Robert Barnes [01:13:21] I'm on Twitter at Barnes underscore law as well, but the best place is locals, that's where I'm at all the time.
Chris Martenson [01:13:26] Awesome. Well, thanks a lot for your time today and we'll be working together. So looking forward to anything you come up with and we'll have you back on if you have a big break in case we're going to want to know about it and talk to you about it, OK?
Robert Barnes [01:13:37] Absolutely.
Chris Martenson [01:13:38] All right. Thank you. Thanks.