National Guard Sent To Chicago - Fascism Or Salvation Debate w/ Joel Webbon, PiscoLitty and Connor Tomlinson
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Joel Webbon @rightresponsem (X) Pisco Litty @PiscosHour (YouTube) Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
El grito has been canceled in Chicago because ICE is being sent in.
And so this is a Mexican Independence Day festival in Grant Park.
They're shutting it down because they're concerned about widespread ice raids, which is just weird for a lot of reasons.
But that's not the principal issue we're here to discuss.
We're to discuss the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago and other cities, and whether it is the it is fascistic takeover or the salvation of these people plagued by crime.
We got a uh a great panel here today.
Uh our our resident liberals in in b uh back in town.
I'm an attorney and uh I talk a lot about what the Trump administration is doing.
And I, you know, obviously take the position that these uh deployments, especially of of military officials, the National Guard are uh not just in the most case is illegal, but also against our history and tradition and uh the Constitution.
Uh actually we uh we talked about it the other day with Connor that your perspective might be interesting considering you come from an out from an outside country, though you do have a more conservative bent.
Yeah, well, my country is currently in the grips of an arco tyranny, and I actually um I might end up agreeing with you because I want to free the National Guard up so they can come over and help us with with our problem.
But yeah, Colin Tomlinson, host of Thomson Talks on YouTube, Reuters for courage media and general troublemaker, and hopefully friend of the show, considering you keep having me.
So there's a uh we'll just we'll just kick this one off, and uh I will not be separated from this as I am from the South Side of Chicago, city proper, and grew up in in ways that I don't think people should grow up.
But to be fair, I will stress this.
As as bad as it was the crime that that we dealt with in Chicago, the world has been worse for a very, very long time.
And things are still pretty good relatively, not that anyone should tolerate gang violence.
But I will begin the uh debate specifically on the issue of Chicago, and I will speak about uh how Chicago deals with crime and Trump's uh uh plan for sending in the National Guard, and then I will ask you to opine.
So there are two strategies being employed uh uh that have been I should say there's a principal strategy that's been employed throughout Chicago for the past several decades, particularly in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods that has been done by the Democrats and the Liberals.
Donald Trump is offering up a new strategy, which is to deploy the National Guard.
In uh the area I grew up, we had a we had a place called the LeClair courts.
Domin uh it was it was it was basically all black houses and neighborhoods.
And because of the violence, pr pr uh uh specifically and literally from this black neighborhood coming into other areas, shootings, um, you know, there's the gang initiations called getting v'd.
We had uh routinely in my neighborhood, which was largely white working class immigrant and Latino, the people from the LeClaire courts, largely largely almost entirely black, would come over and just rob you blind, and the cops couldn't do anything about it.
And the cops said, the problem is we get sued instantly on racial grounds because we end up arresting a bunch of black people.
So the city liberals, the Democrats said we have a solution to the problem of crime.
They bulldozed all the black people's homes and kicked them out and force them into poverty and worse circumstances.
That was the Democrat strategy.
I don't agree with that.
I think there's a bad strategy.
Donald Trump says, we'll deploy the National Guard.
They will not enforce laws, they'll likely just be cleaning up trash.
But the strategy here is gangbangers are gonna be scared to open fire on crowds when there's a bunch of National Guard standing around.
As a Chicago native and resident, I believe it is preferable to take the Donald Trump conservative approach of deploying National Guard, but not to enforce laws, but as a presence as opposed to the Democrat strategy of tear down the homes of black people and kick them out and make them homeless.
So you agree with me, don't you, that there are congressionally imposed limits on the president's use of the National Guard that are found in Article 1 of the Constitution that Congress.
There are certain circumstances where it would be argued that Trump's deployment of the National Guard is illegal, that is a good thing and he should do it.
It's it's called well, what what's what's pre what's preferable?
The Democrat strategy to bulldoze their homes and make them homeless, or Trump having eighty-four National Guards standing periodically on street calls.
You know, it it's a false dichomedy dichotomy, but if you were going to force me to choose between bulldozing homes and illegal deployments, at a bare minimum, right?
Bulldozing homes would be some act that I assume was passed off democratically.
It sounds like you're putting a lot of emphasis on the legality.
So to use the dichotomy that Tim presented, you know, the idea of black people's homes being bulldozed, you mentioned, you know, well, at least that would come about, we would presume democratically.
Just because something is brought about democratically doesn't mean that it's just, but there are longer term interests in the survival of the country that are at stake when you just, you know, don't think about the constitutional framework and history of our country, which was particularly worried with standing armies.
Stand as libertarians, you know, you guys must be concerned.
So just real quick, uh, this is uh 48th West 44th Street.
This is a couple blocks from where I grew up.
And it's all just beautiful lush fields surrounded by fences that uh that's what it is.
I wonder if I can go back in time.
Oh, yeah, look at this.
That's where black people used to live.
Look at all these houses.
They fucking destroyed and di because instead of saying we want to deal with the crime, they went in, evicted all the black people and and ripped their homes down.
Um, we're here to discuss what is the solution to the problem of crime, and is it uh you you can make the argument that there's a pie in the uh actually let me put it this way.
I I from this neighborhood, growing up in Chicago, uh, who has have lost friends to the gang violence and the crime and the drug trade, who uh have friends who've witnessed corpses being dragged down alleys, who was personally shot at.
The hot dog stand, the little shop that was two blocks from where I grew up had bullet holes and it's bulletproof windows.
And I don't want to pretend like that's the apocalypse, because I know that life was bad when we all lived in the woods and were fighting each other and war in Europe or Asia or whatever it may have been.
I get it.
Science technology has improved.
But children shouldn't grow up in places like this.
Crime shouldn't be this way.
Now, my whole life, I've been told by Democrats the solution is not to arrest these people and to let them go.
And when the crime got so bad and the people were so pissed off that it wasn't tenable anymore, what did they do?
They literally just destroyed the black neighborhood.
The city decided to go in and bulldoze everything and rip it out of the ground and evict all of these people.
I don't think that's a solution either.
All that's gonna do is shuffle it under the rug and make more crime.
So that strategy didn't work.
I'm not saying it's these are the only plays.
Donald Trump's play is the the the estimates are about 80 National Guard per city, and what they'll likely be doing is picking up trash.
They do not have the authority to enforce the law, local law.
But the idea is in these areas where gangs come into uh like Vidom Park, where I grew up, where you'd see 15 black teenagers come into our neighborhood and just steal everything from you.
They won't do it when there are two National Guardsmen standing there with rifles.
Well, you know, but one of the ways in which you're trying to sell this is you're saying they're just gonna be standing there as a show a presence, a show of force.
I I I think that that is by itself also problematic under our history and framework of our constitution, where we're specifically uh scared of standing armies and the founders, especially, right?
Uh I find it very difficult having experienced the things that I did to have people not from this place tell me that I don't want National Guard in my I didn't say that.
So in Chicago, there's not going to be a single Democratic politician who's going to come out and tell you because crime got so bad, we flattened the black community.
Yeah, but why are we playing this game of whataboutism when we're like, okay, the Democrats had a bad policy By the way, they've had multiple bad policies on crime over the course of decades and decades and decades.
It's for decades, for generations, the Democrat policies, the liberal plans, the plans you're presenting, and the and the and the counter that you're making to Donald Trump has failed.
And has resulted in people that I know being dead.
And the response from the city was, of course, they're going to give platitudes.
We're going to beautify the area.
And they don't they don't say, hey, the gang violence murder has gotten so bad and the drug dealing so wild.
It's funny that we have a UK person coming here to talk to me about the first amendment, not my country.
But he was that's why we're not gonna be able to do hold in this country, in this country we have a right to expression.
And also, by the way, I think it's even he's got you there.
It's even extra funny.
I just want to finish this and I'll let you finish.
So it's even extra funny because the whole purpose that our constitutional structure in our history is so fearful of standing armies has to do with British deployments of the military in the United States, like the Boston massacre, et cetera.
And so, yes, we don't need your lessons on military deployments or the first amendment.
That's after, and and the history is really helpful here because it was after President Grant's deployment of troops in the Southern states.
That the reaction to that, and after the Hayes-Tilden election, they passed Posse Comitatus specifically because troops were in the South enforcing uh federal law, enforcing civilian law, and they didn't like that.
And so Congress passed Posse Comitatis.
And so, yeah, the history really, really helps my case here.
Well, you're you're you're being unnecessarily defensive of not being compatible with you.
The point I'm going to lead with this is that's all well and good, but the the appeal to the justification of the law appeals to a context which no longer applies.
Because the reason those laws were written was an internal conversation about limits, checks and balances on the undue application of power within a homogenous population, right?
The current problem that America has is they're in a state of emergency.
They've imported what, 10 to 15 million illegals in the last four to five years alone.
The crime is out of control because of foreign investment in DAs and progressive cities, and they treat the criminals like the victims of society.
So if the local authorities are not going to enforce the law and they're going to put people's lives at risk, then yes, the federal government has a duty to step in and safeguard its citizens, because if the on on the ground the DAs help are ideologically bankrupt and endangering people, it is morally justified to have the military step in and reinforce order.
Yeah, I basically think that there's a very I want to address your context argument because I think it's one that people bring up.
Um but so I will address afterwards.
I think that there's a certain threshold that we apply in terms of severity.
Everyone has that.
That you know, you're not gonna respect the laws of North Korea, you're not gonna respect the laws of the Nazi regime.
But I really really value our constitutional system and structure and our history.
It has produced the most prosperous, power, most powerful country in the history of the world.
We're right now at the height of our power.
And and so I want to protect that system because it seems to produce really, really, really good results and protect domestic liberty.
Um so you know, you'd have to have a you said yourself, it's not like we can't live.
You said it yourself at the start of the of the the conversation.
We've had worse times.
And so it sounds to me like we haven't met that threshold, at least in your mind, to that we're gonna throw away our constitutional scheme of government.
So for example, um he the title he invoked in California, it's rebellion, it's invasion, none of which are present, and an inability to enforce the government.
What I I You just said you were so certainly you mean something when you said you agreed that what happened in LA with ICE was a rebellion.
You have your own standard for what you meant by rebellion.
So clearly that applies to January 6th, doesn't it?
In January 6th, was there a foreign government saying that their people were agitating on behalf of the R. I don't know what you're talking about that Mexican the Shine Bond represent that like the Mexican residents were doing they were waving waving flags.
They were waving wave they were waving foreign flags in January 6th.
They were waving Georgian flag, the country of Georgia flag.
Whether or not they're waving a flag and whether a foreign country is saying that these are all shock troops to leverage political changes in your mind whether something is a rebellion or not.
See, with the with the ICE riots where you have the federal law, you have federal government going in specifically to enforce a law, an organized group of people putting out flyers and saying for the purpose of this, we will come out and engage in violence is different, right?
So if my argument is that there were some people on Jan 6 that intended to overthrow to stop the vote count, most didn't.
And there were some people in LA that were intending to stop federal government from engaging in law enforcement, which is under the law the same thing, uh insurrection or rebellion.
So in terms of frustrating the federal purpose They're the exact same thing, I'm calling them the same thing, I'm saying law enforcement should have done the same thing, and you're choosing one to be and one not to be.
I'm saying that there was an organized effort among leftist activists across California.
We did not see that as a coordinated effort with January 6th.
However, some people on January 6th did have that intent.
And if the government were to say we are going to invoke the same act for the deployment of law enforcement to stop these violent actions, that is acceptable.
Insurrection is the broader term here, and rebellion is a subset of it.
Um and insurrection is um levying war against the United States.
It's a type of it's a type of treason, all right?
And levying war and it has four elements to it an assemblage, a public purpose, um, the use of force or intimidation, and uh to frustrate uh a US law and basically to violate a U.S. law.
And so I would because I'm consistent, I would say that there are some things.
They're not in I am consistent in in LA that would under the historical definition of insurrection qualify as an insurrection.
So let's let's let's hang on a second.
I am consistent though, because I use that historical definition.
I don't know what definition you guys are using, but which is like somehow the a foreign country has some role into whether something is an insurrection.
So we should no, I said he cited a statute which includes one of the purposes in it invasion, rebellion, or inability to So invasion is in is is is included.
No, no, but he didn't he did not make a finding that the on January 6th, a large portion of the people who are arrested and charged, did not engage in insurrection, did not engage in rebellion, did not riot, did not fight with police, did not tear down barricades, did not smash windows.
There were people who showed up an hour after police had cleared everybody out.
The doors were still open, the paths were still clear.
I have I've I have interviewed some of these people, I have met them.
One couple, they were in their late 50s, showed up an hour after everything had stopped, walked up the stairs to open doors, walked in, looking around, shrugged and left, and got convicted and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
And and until he does, don't you think that you need to analyze like you're basically saying that you don't care to analyze whether Trump's actions are legal or not under the current authorities that it's that is a huge leap that is not part of the.
Do you care to analyze whether his actions are legal or if they're illegal, are you gonna say who cares if it's illegal?
The latest was that there was a trial on Posse Comitatus, and Judge Breyer found that that they did in fact violate the latest was that the restrictions were lifted and Trump was a very good thing.
They're already reviewing it, uh whatever.
That all that is to say is it's a live issue under under the courts, and it's a separate issue whether or not the courts are able to review it and whether or not he's following the law.
Can I just what he said?
Because he had something very interesting.
He was basically saying this is a wholly different context.
And so me trying to apply Posse Comitat is a law that's on the books to the conduct now, it's removing and divorcing the context of 1878 and applying it and misapplying it in the current day.
That's not true.
We're fighting the same battles that we're doing now, like that that they were.
You know, they were having a uh an immigration problem, according to them, uh, in the 1870s, too.
They the first restrictive immigration law they passed was the Page Act in 1875.
And there was a great deal of Chinese immigration that was happening that people were pissed about in that era.
So I don't really think that the the difference here in context is the immigration pattern.
If anything, we're fighting the same separation of powers issues that we're doing today as they were back in the day.
So uh we had this this debate a couple months ago.
And and I'll make and I know you commented after the fact, and I think this is sophistry on your part and the liberals.
During the BLM riots, there's a clip that liberals shared where I said this is an insurrection.
The previous context in the greater form, the long form of what I said was here's the insurrection act.
The insurrection act says that if local law is not being enforced or that individuals are using violence to stop the enforcement of federal law, that qualifies for the president to invoke the insurrection act and send the National Guard.
This qualifies as an insurrection in that context.
Then when it came to January 6th, the context liberals brought up was that this large body of people that were riding were trying to overthrow the United States government.
It's an insurrection.
To which I said, No, they're not trying to over Most of those people had no idea what the fuck was going on.
No, no, but what I'm saying is the underlying assumption that to do an insurrection, that either colloquially or under the historical legal frameworks, that that is what is needed to qualify as an insurrection, that you would need to overthrow the government.
During this court, the court case over whether Donald Trump was disqualified under the Fourth Amendment for insurrection, the corporate press was was running the line.
Their narrative was that's why I said it's colloquial or semantic as opposed to the legal.
That's what the distinction was that Trump tried to overthrow the U.S. government.
And that's what the Fourteenth Amendment meant because of the Civil War.
So I don't I don't think the engagement insurrection also has a uh you know historical legal definition, and it doesn't include, you know, look pushing for people to have beliefs.
No, no, I'm saying red states in terms of the the reason why he's not deploying red states is because he has relationships with these governors, and that's why he's doing it.
Um, but there's like I call it Floyd Gate, where now I think we're seeing largely like Indian people are making any AI George Floyd videos.
It's like it's one thing when Derek Chauvin's stealing fried chicken from George Floyd.
It's another when it's just George Floyd with his baby and his baby saying da-da, which is like it's getting crazy.
But there's a string of videos that are appearing on Instagram that are just racist jokes and targeting everybody.
There's videos making fun of fat white trash people, but a lot of these anti-Indian I shouldn't call it anti-Indian, but m mocking Indians, where it's like there's one where a judge goes for scamming, you are being sent being sentenced to a 15-minute shower, and the Indian guy goes, no, please, not a shower.
And then it shows an Indian guy screaming in a shower.
They have millions of views.
The reason I bring this up is there was a video that my friend told me about, who is not political.
This is this is a a dude who does not engage in politics at all and knows nothing about it.
And he said Instagram suggested a Nick Fuentes reel where Fuentes was saying everybody knows that the crime is coming from the black neighborhoods.
Nobody wants to live there.
He says it's irresponsible to bring your wife and child to black neighborhoods.
And everybody knows when you talk about shootings and crime, you're talking about black people in black neighborhoods.
That has millions of views, and people I know that like again, I'm stressing this who don't engage in politics on Instagram who are watching videos of Legos and Star Wars, got recommended that.
That is that is crazy that Instagram is promoting that in their algorithm and that people are sharing it, and all the comments were like Fuentes is right.
So I'm saying that suggestion when you brought up you you made the comment to to uh Connor about saying something about black communities, whether it is true or not is not material to what I'm pointing out.
I'm pointing out That there is one big tech is allowing the narrative and pushing it.
And there are many people who are now coming up publicly saying, yes, that's what I believe.
Yeah, so I think this is exactly, you know, if there is a problem in terms of the perception here with respect to you know race, that's even more of an issue that we wouldn't want the the government to be overstepping its legal bounds in terms of authoritarianism and in terms of this deployment.
Because if we are concerned that people will make these kinds of stereotypes and it will infringe on other foundational protections like equal protection, that would be even more concerning.
What if they're true that black people well it is true that black people uh disproportionately commit more crime than white people?
No, the problem is the potential rights deprivation that would you be be okay with, for example, there being a lower standard to stop black people than white people go.
And uh so this is where we get to an interesting argument where where you, I believe, are sub are putting subjective morals under the constitution, which you accused us of doing.
My argument is this.
The founding fathers were pretty dang clear when they were drafting the constitution, the reasons for why they were doing it and what the second amendment says.
We as a society cannot exist with a written constitution where we arbitrarily decide without amending it that we've changed it.
So when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, can we infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms without vote?
In the meantime, though, what you can do is you can say that for the same reason that people who are schizophrenic can't own guns, you could actually say this is a condition that bans somebody.
Yes, and and also, did you know that um in the 1800s it was commonplace for uh local sheriffs and uh big cities to confiscate the weapons of individuals entering those towns?
The the the constitution as people believe it to exist never existed, never did.
So First Amendment, let's let's make it even simpler.
First word of the First Amendment.
You're right.
Congress cannot make a national church.
So you cannot have a federal church over the whole country that is episcopalian or Catholic or Baptist or whatever.
But at the time that that happened, you still had within the uh, you know, the original colonies, um 10 or 11 out of the 13 colonies had sanctioned churches.
So technically, even with the First Amendment as it is on the books today, you could have state churches.
Texas could be, you know, Baptists, and Mississippi could be Presbyterian.
You could have state churches.
I'm not even saying that you should, but you could have state churches.
What I would argue for at the national level is a pan-Protestant Christian nationalism.
So so the think of it like this the Ten Commandments.
I think this is helpful.
I'll say it quick and I'll let it go.
Uh, Think of the the first and the tenth commandment.
All right, I'm Protestant.
Okay.
So uh the Catholics are gonna uh take, you know, the the tenth commandment of uh thou shalt not covet and bifurcate it into two.
Don't covet stuff and then don't covet the wife, you know.
Uh and that's so that they can get rid of the second commandment, which is do not make graven images because the Catholics like their images.
All right.
So I'm a Protestant, so so bear with me.
Uh first commandment is thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Last commandment is uh do not covet.
Two tables, ten commandments, but think of it as two headlines, two subcategories, tables of the law.
Um, our our duty toward God, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, strength.
Uh, and then the second is love your neighbor as yourself.
The first four of the Ten Commandments deal with our love for God.
Uh have no other gods before me, don't make any graven images, don't take the Lord's name in vain, and remember the Sabbath.
The next six, second table of the law now, pertaining to our love for neighbor is honor your father and mother, don't murder, uh, don't commit adultery, uh, don't uh bear false witness and don't covet.
The tenth commandment, I don't want any police state enforcing the tenth commandment because coveting is is a sin, but biblically speaking, and all through the old testament and America's history, coveting was a sin, but it was never viewed as a crime, right?
You don't want like uh Tom Cruise minority report where they're trying to predict crimes and and sins of the heart.
That's yeah, and neither do I. Um I don't know, you so you score this deployment.
No, I don't.
Let me let me finish.
So coveting is a sin, it's not a crime.
So it's like, so then when is this tenth commandment?
It's one of the 10 commandments, when is it punished?
It's punished when an individual doesn't check coveting at the level of the heart and it spills over into theft or to murder or to it's when it breaches now.
It's a crime.
It's an outward action that is against the people and against the Lord.
And so too, with the first table of the law, look at the first commandment, um, have no other gods before me.
So are are we gonna be that's a sin, not a crime.
I'm gonna Am I gonna be punishing people for for their idolatry in their heart?
No.
But if it spills over into action, so if a guy's public for example, that's right, public prayers to Muhammad.
So if a guy, well, yes, if a guy apostasizes privately in his heart and stops attending church, that's one thing.
But if that guy is uh forms the sisters of perpetual indulgence, is it doing parades, mocking and blaspheming Jesus Christ with adulterous nuns in front of children?
Or publicly saying that you know Jesus is not divine, for example, if if uh a Jewish person publicly states and rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ, that would be a public action that you could be sanctioned for.
There's a difference in somebody in free speech and something somebody saying something uh publicly versus having prayer sirens five times a day in an American city, calls to prayer.
That that should be illegal.
And church bells should be legal for two reasons.
One, church bells are pretty, sirens are not.
Second, we're a Christian nation and we're not Islamic.
Before we did the event, small channel, it's got 10,000 subscribers.
We've sold a lot of skateboards, it's pretty good.
And uh we've signed some uh uh professional athletes.
We have a great team.
And the which is not really skateboarders, whatever.
It's a bunch of activists.
They're they're they're lefty, the very, very left.
And they attacked us, they called us white supremacists, they insult, they insulted us.
They threatened anybody who would dare come here to skate with us as you'll lose your sponsors, we'll make sure you never you never work again in the industry.
When you ask me about his worldview And whether I'd be opposed or angry.
So we do the event and they start attacking the people who have attended, but before we happen, but before we do the event, they're attacking the people who want to come.
They're attacking athletes we've worked with.
I've gotten messages from professional athletes saying things like, um, I wish I could come out there, but I would lose my job, my sponsors will kick me off.
I can't do it.
Then we offered $3,000 for one day for just a few minutes of work.
Plus, we did something called Tips for Tricks, where if you landed tricks, we call it, we gave you $100 bills.
Guess what they're all saying now?
Can I please come?
Because the only thing that actually mattered was the fear of force.
And so I am not a child.
I uh Michael Malice is a much more learned man on this, but I agree with him.
And he said, Tim, you're an anarchist.
And I'm like, I understand what you're saying.
I've referred to myself as a as a philosophical anarchist in understanding.
And the moment when he and all of his people point a gun at me and say, proclaim Jesus Lord, then I'm then I'm gonna say just for the record, that's never been a thing.
But my my my right, I'm not I'm not trying to accuse you of actually doing that.
I'm saying when when uh uh if you know, I I made a comment to uh Adam Conover about how he would never mock Muhammad in the UK and uh we actually got some Islamic protesters at like one of our events, I guess they were mad because I had said that.
Uh I'm gonna tell them they're wrong and I can say whatever I want.
Don't play, right?
But there's a reality.
As you already pointed out, there are things you can say that you believe that will destroy your life.
All I'm trying to say is just because there have been times, and I agree with you, especially on the First Amendment stuff, where we have not lived up to our constitutional ideals.
If we're going to read the letter of the law pertaining to free speech, the idea that the government can make it illegal to incite violates the first amendment.
So the first one of the first things that the Adams administration did, or uh, or was I don't know if the first thing, but one of things that it did was pass the sedition laws, which basically made it a crime to insult the president or criticize the president.
Um I think it was 1957, I and I believe it was Eisenhower, um, that he actually federalized uh the National Guard and sent them in to Little Rock, Arkansas, uh during uh desegregation.
And so there was uh an all-white school there, and the governor of Arkansas, Arkansas, you know, this is a classic Arkansas move right here, but uh was saying, no, we're not gonna desegregate, we're gonna keep our all-white school.
And uh and the National Guard was federalized by Eisenhower to bring in and help march in the, you know, with guns and all those things, the black students into the school uh to de, you know, uh segregate uh that school.
D do you I'm just curious, do you feel like that was a just use of the National Guard?
So I'm not sure what the then existing statutes were for authorization of the National Guard for the federal, if they were the same as they are now, but to answer your question, um uh, you know, I and I think one of those situations it was the U.S. Marshals, and I'm not sure that is civilian law enforcement.
But in the main, no, this was national government.
There was a potential for a nullification crisis there where you have the state, it's not like the the state governor and the and that situation was actively obstructing uh you know Brown versus Board and the federal laws in the books with respect to equal protection.
So in those situations, I can imagine being okay with it.
I would need to examine the more the legal context and the facts to understand if it makes sense of the law.
I don't know that that was so so it means you can't racially discriminate uh on the basis of elementary schools and court ruling, supreme court ruling, and because of that, now they're saying, well, that we have we have a different set of rules, and you know, when the governor and local authorities did not adhere to that, then you had the National Guard coming in and enforcing it.
Do you think here's my question?
Take the legality out of it, and I know you don't like that, you've been pretty clear about it.
Um, but do you think that was good?
Do you think it was morally good?
Well, no, and more particular, being more particular.
Um do you think it was morally good to go against the local governing authorities to force the uh the the integration of schools?
I do.
Okay, so but why not?
So if you're saying it's a moral universal good, but it's a mate, I don't know what you mean by universal good.
Okay, it's it was a moral good at the time to make sure that different races of of students are in the same school together.
Um how come you don't want to save black people's lives?
Okay, you're you're not gonna like this, but what I when I when I say something is good, right?
Um I don't know if if you're grounding it out in some kind of like um view on on objective morality.
Yes, of course.
And and I don't know if you're like a presuppositionalist or one of these type people who like say logic doesn't make sense if if there's no God or some shit like that.
I really don't want to, I mean, we can if you want to get into the pre-supposition.
Okay, I don't even know what that statement means to be honest with you.
Um so to my intuition about whether something is good or not depends on the facts, right?
And so if the law, if we are living in a society in which I say, you know, in general, I think it's good to not break the law and to follow the law and make sure that the law is enforced, because in general, I think overall, this constitutional system and our historical tradition brings about good outcomes.
I think that that, you know, you can't be divorced from that context and say in isolation that are good.
So following the equal protection clause, uh-huh, um, which was passed specifically to prevent individuals from being subordinated, including you know, from private discrimination, but especially from from public discrimination, that in that context, following that law that was enacted by the people, ratified by the people, that that is good.
We should if we believe, although it seems like you don't believe in a republic form of government, do you?
He had a video where he basically talked about how the point at which you need to write down your constitution to enforce it is when you're you're cooked.
No, no, no, this is Joseph Demestra's principle, right?
All constitutions are preceded by the morality and the ideas written in the hearts and minds of the men that wrote them.
And so over generations, because the constitution you outsource the enforcement of morality to the document itself.
And so the people to which the Constitution applies no longer believe in the ethic of the Constitution, and so they just start squabbling about how they can circumnavigate the statutes.
The point is, philosophically, the argument is when you get to a point where you need to deploy a federalized police force because the the views of how the country is supposed to be running is different.
I.e.
Donald Trump says no illegal immigration, Democrats say yes, illegal immigration.
Democrats say you can't enforce this law in our state, we'll object it.
And Donald Trump says I can.
And then the interpretation of the Constitution as written is completely different among these two groups.
Well it's not gonna do that, there are reasons for that as well, and it has to do with the fact that you have to follow the law in terms of the immigration nationality act.
You you can't you have to process these people.
You have to uh apprehend them and you have to put them to immigration.
What would you what would it take for you to to say to Trump this is bad, that your deployment in Chicago is bad?
What would it take?
What kind of thing would he have to do with the National Guard in Chicago if we need to that's an open-ended question with a million with a million applications?
Yeah, yeah.
So, like if it's not enough for him to break the law, and you're not gonna be able to do that.
You're gonna say if there were mass riots across the country in every major city, and Trump said the local police have have failed to enforce this, I'm deploying the military and say, okay.
Federalization, so we have sovereign jurisdictions.
The purpose of a republic is that where you grow up in r rural Utah, you have different circumstances than someone who lives in DC.
The problem is Democrats uh tend to operate in the inverse, such as West Virginia in the rural parts of West Virginia, the Democrats are trying to ban federally the right to transfer firearms among uh for private sales.
So I said I would not be okay with the total federalization of policing.
You then ask me why.
And I said, and I'll say and I'll and let me finish now, because Jim Bob and Ricky Rick Ricky Joe, who live two hours from each other in the mountains of West Virginia, are living in completely different circumstances to Washington, DC.
So the federalization of police force under the Democrat laws of gun control infringes upon the rights of two guys who live in the boonies who have to be able to do that.
Just because I say that there's there's some circumstances in one in which it would be okay to federalize National Guard, doesn't mean that I said that it was legal in this time.
I used to be a bartender, and I would talk to these military, and we were in a military type town, and every time I would talk to these um vets and these former military and sometimes active uh service people, they would say the one thing that we're taught all the time, you don't deploy at home.
We don't have standing armies at home.
That's and everyone I talk to would say, you know, we're very proud of that tradition.
So so the will regulation of a militia, the um the allowance of each state to govern itself, uh thinking its police force would act in the in the interests of its own citizens with different geographical particularities.
That was fine for settlement for a few hundred years.
You had problems, of course, you had the civil war, etc.
You had the confiscation of firearms, as Tim said.
But broadly, you could return to source.
Do you not see in certain places like Chicago, like LA, where civilization is just broken down into violence, The a more forceful application of the law would be temporarily necessary in order to restore order.
A bit like in the Roman Republic when you had a Caesar figure like Cincinnati, step in for a little while and then renounce that power.
So basically you're asking me, would I be in favor of legal changes, changes to the law to make this a temporary centralization of power to then recreate the conditions where self-government is possible again?
The answer is no.
I don't think that the military is suited for regular civilian deployments because I think that they're essentially, you know, they're have a lot of different interests.
I think they're very honorable, but they're murder machines.
You're like, I met some guy who told me that the military should be.
I'm trying to appeal the way that you do, but in New York, a guy went to, I think it was the Empire State Building and uh shot and killed people in his office who disgruntled the ball.
The argument that was presented, all like this was a New York talking point.
It was a big concern that needed to be rectified was that the cost of the lawsuits for uh uh improper discharge and injury was less than the cost of training the NYPD.
So it was actually it's your it's your basic uh cost uh cost risk analysis, right?
It is Remember the scene from Fight Club where Edward Norton's character is on the plane and he says if a car is defective and it crashes and kills the people inside, and the company knows the cost of the lawsuit will be less than the cost of a recall.
We don't recall.
That's what happened in New York.
They said, how come these cops couldn't shoot?
And they said, well, to be honest, comprehensive firearm training is more expensive than the lawsuits we have to pay out when they shoot innocent people.
This was this was the the basic uh Did anyone say that?
Yes.
But I want to be careful here because there's I don't want to ascribe something to somebody who's gonna sue me later for for obvious reasons.
The the general conversation among politicians was the NYPD, or I should say the debate politically in the cultural space was the NYPD isn't doing these trainings because it's more expensive than paying lawsuits.
They're not gonna publicly admit at the highest levels, but that was the internal like everybody kind of knows.
It's 50 million a year in lawsuits versus 100 million for training.
So what we end up seeing is I will say this.
I would rather have a military trained individual who later becomes a cop than a short fat guy with no training.
A former military, I'm I'm I'm not talking about military, because I'm trying to make the point, former military police who have military and police training.
Great, are safer and better at their jobs than somebody who just grew up in the area and got limited police training.
Down, down, down, down, down, until they listen out.
He is kept among us in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
One of the main complaints, central theses of the founding generation, was that having standing armies mixed around with civilian and uh civilian enforcement is dangerous.
You you cited, you said it didn't you consent, Rome.
Okay, you you cited Rome.
One of the big dangers and uh why standing armies might be you know bad and deleterious to domestic liberty is that someone might use that domestic that domestic military to usurp our Republican form of government.
And so these are genuine policy reasons why we don't want to have standing army.
We don't want the standing army to usurp our Republican form of government.
The problem that we have right now is that the people, our citizens themselves and a bunch of people who aren't citizens, have usurped that Republican form of government.
So, like the this is like going into um a house that's on fire with um or or a house that's flooded with a fire extinguisher, right?
It's it's the wrong solution.
You have to look at the context.
When when we have, you know, the founders um they're they're looking at England and there is religious persecution, right?
That the king at the time uh was forcing ministers to read from the sports almanac on the Lord's Day in their church service, which violated their consciences because you got a bunch of you know Protestant Puritans, those kinds of things.
You you had tyranny.
You had civil tyranny, you had ecclesiastical tyranny, and so they're coming from that, and they're coming from that with people who are are homogenous, people who have the same convictions, they have the same ethnic background.
Um and so in that context, this doesn't apply our fear listen, they're saying our fear is government overreach.
And even with the First Amendment, our fear is religious overreach.
When the First Amendment was not to think that the first amendment was written, and they're like, you know what, we're really hoping one day um that this will protect Muslims.
I just I just want to I I just want to say one I can't I consent.
As a Chicago native, and I I know I don't speak for literally everyone in Chicago, I can tell you that my friends and my homies, they work here, they're from my neighborhood, we're gonna majority don't though.
My neighborhood in Chicago, people of Chicago, people of DC.
My Democrat neighborhood in Chicago is now a Trump supporting red neighborhood.
And who asked?
Okay, uh, so I I am saying this.
For my neighborhood, where we do agree and did vote for Trump, we consent to Trump deploying to that neighborhood specifically.
And I do not believe it's fair that Pritzker, the governor, infringe upon our rights as a community to request federal assistance only in our neighborhood.
It's not uh so my point is quite literally, my neighborhood turned red and voted for Trump.
This was in 2012 it was blue Democrat voting.
And then in 2016 it was blue.
In 2020, it was a little red.
And in 2024, it turned red and voted for Trump.
Why should this particular isolated community that has a shared worldview?
When they say we actually would like the National Guard to come here to stop the violence, why should the city of Chicago who don't live there and don't agree be able to enforce their will and allow the crime to continue?
When you cite the king of England as violating the rights of the colonies, because the colonies is a jurisdiction under the crown, you say we have the right to oppose the king.
When I say a single neighbor in Chicago says no to the mayor, you say the mayor can tell them what they can or can't do because they don't have the right.
If you go back to the Declaration of Independence, what was the other big issue with the system in the the colonies is they didn't have representation.
They didn't have representation in the parliament.
They didn't have any say whatsoever.
That's not the same in the situation that you presented, where we you have local governance and you have local governance in, you know, right next to you.
People have a right to s to self-governance, be it a small neighborhood, a city, state, or otherwise, and no one should be able to come to a single to a single person and force them to drop to their knees to uh proselytize for Mahmoud.
Do you honestly think that if one person, one person in Chicago says, I consent, that that the government should have the right to deploy.
Okay, so what are you talking about then?
Wait, no, so then what are you talking about?
I'm talking about the the politicians and the sovereignties that we have established in our current system, which are the state government, the state is the true sovereign in that sense, and they've allocated some authority to the city of Chicago, they have not consented.
If a body of people in a specific jurisdiction vote for how they should live within certain uh within certain respects of obvious things like don't murder, right?
We should say we respect the wishes of this community.
Are you gonna say, therefore, if if what you're saying is what you think should happen, that is that one alderman should be able to speak for his district or whatever the polity is, whatever the group is there, that everywhere where they don't provide that permission, Trump should be barred from going.
The people there are suffering under violence, drugs, or otherwise.
They all vote in majority and say, we need help.
We don't want to infringe on anybody's communities.
So we are not going to ask any National Guard or, nor do they have the authority to do so.
They say, uh, mayor, can you please send us help?
The mayor says no.
And they say, okay, well, we have to do something about that.
They form neighborhood watches.
What does the city do?
It goes and arrests those people and criminally charged.
I'm not gonna this actually happens.
They try to put up signs saying uh neighborhood watch, and then what ends up happening is you're guilty of a criminal conspiracy and people got criminally charged for doing so.
So when the mayor is violating the rights of the people who are not trying to infringe on anybody else to stop crimes, I believe it is appropriate for that community to be able to say, Yeah, Trump, we consent to send a National Guard, and Trump has the authority to say there's an emergency here and there's crimes happening.
So let's let's do that.
So here so here's the inverse.
If there is a three square mile radius where people from that community are going outside of it and shooting and killing people and stealing from them, I believe then it's appropriate for Trump to say, I don't care what you want, you're committing crimes against people, so we're sending in National Guard, whether you want us to or not.
When the U.S. government starts proposing evidence showing that there are child there's child slave labor going on at marijuana farms, I say yes to it.
The crime is still happening, but because people have faster uh ability to call 911 and ambulances arrive on scene much more quickly, the rate at which you die from the violent crime has gr gone down.
What ended up happening is with ubiquity of cell phones in the late 2000s, we see a big drop-off in the murder rate.
What we ended up seeing from many politicians was murder is down, we're winning.
What they didn't understand was that attempted murder or violent aggravated assaults were remained static.
So in the 90s, if you got stabbed, someone would run and try and find a phone, you died.
In 2010, you got stabbed, someone took their cell phone, called 911, and within minutes the paramedics were there decreasing the amount at which someone got murdered.
So, is the urgency of crime changed because murder has gone down?
No, no, no, no.
It's still happening, but with the ability to call law enforcement much and first responders quickly.
In certain circumstances where Trump would do one thing that would be a net positive with a net negative, he will then turn it around and present with an absolute saying, aha, you support this.
The current situation isn't better in terms of crime overall because the crime rate's going down.
That's fucking simplistic.
And so when Trump When Trump is going to claim credit for decreased crime rates because of his deployments, you're going to say that doesn't tell you to be able to do that.
When I said crime relative to population size is different from overall crime over the course of a year, I don't think people can comprehend what that means.
No, I I think you realize that the the danger that you've done just like DARP.
What you've just done is if you're discounting the overall, is Trump going to remove half the overall benefit of crime going down over the course of 30 years, and you're saying, Oh, I can't read into these crime rates that go down all the time.
Who knows why they're going down, up and down?
You can't read into it, it's still a problem, still equally.
When Trump cites that very same statistics in the context of his deployments, you're gonna be saying the same thing, aren't you?
So if you're the the one month, the one month deployment, if it produces some lower amount of crime and that's the way that's not a good saying I would agree with Trump.
And it's it's a weird world where it's like, you know, what you do is You can't appeal to the law and just say it doesn't matter in other contexts, can you?
So in some hypothetical world where only you have the authority to determine when when laws should be broken, and other people who hold the exact same moral standards.
Everyone, I think, agrees that there are some big uh cases of And why did you ask me?
Because you seem to think that in the main law should be followed.
You don't agree that in the main the law should be followed unless you mean the main unless you reach a threshold of of harm that you should not be able to do that.
Tim, just because there's enforcement discretion and we can't have perfect enforcement of the laws all the time, doesn't mean that we should violate the law, right?
So let me let me let me let me just let me just let me just stress something real quick.
What Peace CO does is he tries to trap you into an absolute position that you will deny 800,000 times like I've done throughout the entirety of the show.
He'll say something, you know, you'll you'll you'll say something like here's a guy who stabbed a baby, she go to jail, and he was black, and you're like, yeah, so he's like, well, Tim said black people should go to jail.
There's also the organization of protests rallying the American population against American interests, which is not a democratic process, it's foreign influence.
So there's a lot of issues there.
And my response is not that he should be deported.
It's you know, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Uh Joel said he would care if the government's doing that.
He said, I would deport people based on their statements against America, but he would have a problem if the administration was doing it my position is uh similar to yours in the sense that let's let's try to get the right laws that actually align with morality.
We all agree that you can have unjust laws, right?
We all agree with that.
And so we'd like to have good laws.
So ideal scenario, change the law and make it good, right?
That's the ideal scenario.
In the meantime, um, the idea of you know working with courts and establishing precedents, you know, getting people on technicalities, right?
We've seen, you know, historically we've seen mob bosses and cleaning up New York who like were, you know, were ultimately brought in and because of jaywalking, when it's like we're not really concerned about jaywalking, but that's that was through the legal system as the law currently rests.
Uh that was the only way that we could bring this guy who is actually doing really terrible stuff to justice.
So ideally, you'd like to change the law to where you could actually get people for doing terrible things.
In the meantime, though, as you're seeking to have better laws that align with justice, using whatever technicality, using whatever's at your disposal to use to get people who hate Israel?
Nope, don't care.
People who hate America out of America, I'm for Joel.
So you're you know, you're the third grandma moved here, right?
And then it's mom, and you know, and then it's you know and then you on both yes uh-huh on both sides the grandchildren correct the grandchildren and I get that even from like a general equity theonomic principle from the old testament that when it came to immigrating into Israel um you couldn't be exploited you couldn't be mistreated you could be a sojourner and the nice thing about sojourners here's a nifty trick sojourners eventually go back they don't stay forever but for somebody who is really staying there forever but they intended to become a part of Israel um there were a lot of rights that they would
But there were certain things that were reserved until the third generation, such as temple access and worship and these kinds of things.
So third generation on both sides or fifth generation on one side.
So that's heritage.
You actually have a heritage.
You have a stake in the past.
Marriage, presupposing children.
I know that there are exceptions, but so that's why I'm not going to say you've got to have five kids or eight or one.
I get flack for it all the time because I've got a lot of guys who follow me that are to my right, and they're like, that's the gayest thing you've ever said.
Thomas Clarence, I believe, is a heritage American.
Last night, we were talking on the show about the U.S. conquering the United Kingdom, for which I said, after the U.S. invades, we will temporarily install Milo Yiannopoulos as viceroy until we can reestablish the crown under which it would be the house of Benjamin.
he will abstain from from engaging with that just real quick I would say that that is still a sin of the heart if I if if in my heart I'm desiring something that God says is an abomination that's a sin.
And the point I was going to make is that I've changed my mind.
I thought that it would be good to install the House of Benjamin as the new crown of the UK.
Okay.
And long may he reign.
And then upon hearing all of this, I've decided the actual solution should be, after we conquer the UK, temporarily have Milo get things in order before the House of Benjamin can take over, We then restore the United States under the crown with Carl Benjamin as our king.
no one can vote.
unidentified
Sargon of Akkad you like that guy he's great I just think no one can vote Carl's the king tell me my liege what you need universal suffrage was a really really bad idea.
Uh, write response ministries on YouTube, right response ministries on YouTube, and then on Twitter, uh, the handle is at rightresponse in as in ministries.
The future, the future plan is we're um we're thinking every other other week is gonna be a live show.
We're actually in talks about doing a deal for 24 episodes, 24 live shows per year.
It's expensive to do, it's hard to do.
And then we got a bunch of other ideas.
Working with Alex Stein, we're talking about doing some game show episodes where we do trivia, and then you guys can just answer Jeopardy questions or something.
