Alex Jones has been out of studio in the present day, so today, Dan and Jordan continue their investigation of what Alex was up to in 2013. In this installment, Alex gets very, very defensive about media coverage about him and has an interview with the second worst sheriff in the US.
I don't know how I got an invitation, because as much as I maybe should have been, I wasn't a part of that scene.
But I ended up, you know, a lot of industrial music, maybe not for me, but it was surreal to walk around the parts of the haunted house with the lights on.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like, just wandering around, just seeing, like, all of these weird corners where people would hide.
And today, Jordan, we've got an interesting episode to go over.
I have some things to say before we do, but before I say the things that I need to say before we get to today's episode, I've got to take a little time to thank some people who have signed up and are supporting the show.
And if you're listening out there and you're thinking, hey, I like this show, I'd like to support what these guys do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com.
There's a button that says support the show.
We'd appreciate it.
So, first thing I need to say is a little bit of a correction.
I had some bad information, some slightly in...
Complete information on our last episode and I was incorrect about the idea that PCP going away led to the development of ketamine.
I was getting really excited to see how far off the rails it was going to get, because, you know, his evening broadcasts have a real tendency to end up really fucked up with him drunk and yelling about how someone, uh, yelling at somebody, basically.
basically, in a really irresponsible way.
Sometimes he even cries and tells us about the four ways humans can learned things those are the great things yeah i sat down to dig in and get us some source material and it immediately became clear to me that this plan of mine was not going to work on the first night of the debates alex was not drunk it definitely feels like someone may have given him a stern talking to and the show is pretty much just a boring version of his normal show but with owen schroyer and barnes co-hosting It's a telethon, for sure.
And it's really less about the debates and more about Alex's victim status and how everyone's trying to take him down.
Ultimately, it was a huge disappointment to me, and it's four hours worth of bullshit that we don't need to go over.
So, I tuned into the Thursday show, figuring Alex has gotta have some next-day analysis to throw out.
I can almost taste how hard he's gonna go after Beto for talking in Spanish.
As the show started up, I could tell that what I was hearing was a pre-recorded message from Alex.
It sounds like he's recording it at like 4 a.m. inside a tin can, and it's basically just him accusing Elizabeth Warren of being on cocaine.
Not just the fact that many of the participants looked like they had escaped from a lunatic asylum, and again, that...
Obviously, Elizabeth Warren, who's normally low energy, looked like she was ready to murder someone and had lightning bolts coming out of her eyes for two hours, guaranteed was on serious amphetamines.
They did play a two-minute recording that Alex sent in where he calls the Democrats losers and begs for money, but it sounds like it was recorded at about 4.10 a.m. in the same tin can he recorded the other day's message in.
And then Friday's show is just that same team again.
Alex is basically a non-factor in his Democratic debate coverage.
On Friday, it's just Barnes, David Knight, Noah and Troyer again.
He doesn't even get to make fun of how Marianne Williamson was there.
Yeah.
unidentified
She was funny.
And he gets he doesn't even get to pretend that she's the face of the party.
Alex is supposed to be deposed in the Sandy Hook lawsuit on July 1st and 2nd or Monday and Tuesday of this week.
It's the Connecticut case where Norm Pattis is in charge.
Given the shit that's been happening with Alex between his horrible response to the illegal pornography that was discovered in Discovery and his very clear attempts to threaten opposing counsel and put a million dollar bounty on them, that sort of shit, I wouldn't be surprised if Norm is insisting Alex actually prepare for this deposition.
If you recall, he does seem like he at least kind of wants to win the case, as opposed to Barnes, who seems far more interested in logging hours on air on InfoWars and making the lawsuits milked for all the publicity they can bring, and then settling the cases whenever shit gets too real.
But the timing of this makes sense that it was a situation where Norm made Alex come to Connecticut early, which would explain his absence as well as the shitty sound quality of the recordings he sent in.
He might have been filming it in an airport or something along those lines.
Whatever the case is, I have no new Alex to cover, and thus we're sticking around in the past to follow how Alex's narratives took shape in the weeks and months after Sandy Hook.
Today we are going over February 17th and 18th.
Some of it's fairly interesting and some of it is profoundly upsetting.
There will be one portion of this episode that I'm going to give a content warning for in advance because some of it's pretty fucked up stuff.
And then I have Atlantic Magazine going, Alex Jones said that the U.S. was attacking Russia with the meteorite that hit Friday morning.
The meteor that came into the atmosphere and Alex Jones is discredited.
And they linked to an article carried by DrudgeReport.com that clearly we were saying rumors and reports that the U.S. attacked Russia and that Russia shot it down spread.
And we go on to say we believe it's a piece of the stone meteorite.
Was it DA-14 that went by?
DA-14.
And that it was not a weapons attack on Russia.
So we write an article reporting on what's all over the Russian news.
We post it.
It goes viral.
One of the biggest stories on Friday, according to the sites that track that.
I'm going to cover that later on the list here.
And then they just tell their readers, Alex Jones said this, and Alex Jones is discredited when we said the opposite.
And more and more, the propaganda against us doesn't even make sense.
Unless you think your readers have IQs below room temperature.
So, if you recall on our Friday episode, I made an explicit point of how Alex didn't need to report on dumb theories that he himself doesn't believe at all are true.
One of the problems is that over the years, there have been a lot of stupid theories that have come out of Alex Jones' shop.
And his writers are so bad at writing, so to the untrained eye, it can sometimes be difficult to tell what they're actually trying to say.
I decided that if anybody can get to the bottom of any of this, it's probably me.
So I checked out this article in the Atlantic.
It has the headline, quote, Russian meteorite conspiracy theories debunked.
Here's what the Atlantic article says as it relates to Alex.
Quote, More wide-eyed theorists have suggested that the object may not have been a meteor at all and could have been a satellite that was shot down or some form of kinetic bombardment weapon aimed at Russia, the conspiracy-loving folks over at InfoWars.
So the beginning of that part is a quote from an InfoWars article.
The part that they're quoting is the part that makes it clear in the Infowars article that they're discussing, quote, more wide-eyed theorists.
So the Infowars article itself was written by Steve Watson, and it pains me to say this, but if you decide to write an article on this stupid of a topic, this is about the best version of it you could write.
The Atlantic accurately covered the Infowars article.
They quoted the part of the story where Steve Watson had written about the wide-eyed conspiracy theorists believing this idea, which is a fair representation of the text.
Now, just because this Atlantic article accurately discussed Steve Watson's article, they might have been able to make a much different case if they took into account all of Infowars' output.
On February 16th, InfoWars published a special report titled, quote, Russian meteor shower or kinetic bombardment attack, question mark.
So between these types of bullshit headlines and the irresponsible reporting and Alex's insistences that the media came down in Russia could be related to the larger near-earth object making a pass by when he had literally no reason to think that was the case, it all adds up to Info was doing a really bad job with Meteor Panic 2013.
Their behavior shows a clear desire to kick off some sort of fear and paranoia, but it was very noncommittal, and I think that's what hurt them.
They went half speed, which any football coach will tell you is when injuries happen.
You're going to fuck up your propaganda game when you go half speed.
And I think that it's also, like, I don't think he likes it whenever he's mentioned or InfoWars is mentioned at all in an article that has debunked in the headline.
You know, when I was in college, I went and sold paintings on the street.
I said, I'm going to go do the true entrepreneurial thing.
And people actually came up to me on 6th Street, and I got a little art showing, and I made some connections, and suddenly I was selling paintings for $3,000, $4,000 a piece.
And I didn't even have time.
I was already successful.
Oil painting and had to quit to fight the New World Order.
I guarantee you, I would have galleries all over the country, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd be selling paintings for $100,000 apiece right now.
But I'm fighting the New World Order and have built a media system that reaches 3 million people plus a day.
But what's interesting is in this next clip we find that Alex knows about what happens in the second stage of the email scam, which implies he's probably...
And see, a lot of people would go do the Nigerian deal, pay the $5,000, not get the million, and then Prince Wabubi's representative would say, I will allow you to talk to Prince Wabubi on the phone.
But you've got to put $10,000 in and then you will get the money.
And many people would shell out five or six times up to $100,000 to get the money from Prince Wabubi.
So you got Stuart Rhodes here coming in, talking about this is a Molon-Labe county.
This is a come-and-take-it county.
I thought that was really interesting.
So, in January 2013, Stuart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers launched what they called the Molan Labbe Pledge, where they declared that they will never register weapons, never obey any order to disarm people or compel registration of weapons, and that they would violently resist, quote, oath-breakers who try and disarm people.
On their website, they specifically say, quote, this is the pledge we published in January 2013 in response to leftist calls for more infringement on the right to keep and bear arms after the Sandy Hook shooting.
That writing is specifically signed by Stuart Rhodes and is explicitly saying that he was compelled to write this pledge for his group of gun weirdos in response to his feelings after Sandy Hook, which is interesting.
But I found this even more interesting since we know that before January, just before January, Alex had launched his Molon Labbe shirt, which he announced on his January 11th show was, quote, the best seller of shirts we've ever sold.
On that same show, he clearly doesn't know how to pronounce Molen Labbe and says, quote, Monelebe.
In many ways, that's kind of a perfect analogy for what he does with his rhetoric.
But what's more interesting to me is that Stuart Rhodes didn't make his Molan Labe pledge until after Alex released this shirt and it became a bestseller.
I think what you have here is an interesting glimpse at a business cycle.
In terms of rhetoric, Alex digs down into really fucked up worlds of insane right-wingers and brings back things that he can make acceptable to more mainstream audiences.
In the process, he monetizes them by creating shirts, hats, bumper stickers, all the like.
He takes this deep, gross world's ideas, shines them up, and then markets them.
Then...
The representatives of these fucked up worlds who Alex has platformed take the product that he's created based off the rhetoric that comes out of their worlds and sells it back to extremists.
I think that there's a cycle here that you can kind of see.
know the more you market this to people the more people see it and get associated with it and it normalizes molan labe so it popularizes that then the oath keeper guy brings it back You would make more money off this than if you just, like, let's say some weird 3%er shirt company made a Molon Labe shirt.
And it's also pretty easy to see Alex's entry to Trump shit having a pretty similar shade, with him stealing Hillary for prison as a line that he read on a bumper sticker.
And then he turned it into some merch of his own, then sold it a storefront.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I just find it very interesting, you know, that Oath Keepers had been around for years and they didn't do a Moulin Labe pledge until Alex released his Moulin Labe shirts.
Like, did the dumb Oath Keepers see that shirt, or talk to Alex and see that shirt out there, and then are like, okay, cool, we can capitalize on this.
Or, were they the ones who gave Alex the idea in the first place?
He puts the shirt out there, and then they can release their pledge because it's already popular or whatever.
I find this date choice really interesting because it tells you what these guys are obsessed with.
They're not really obsessed with the underlying causes of the American Revolution, because if they were, they could seek to memorialize December 16th in honor of the Boston Tea Party.
Or you could go with November 1st in memory of the passage of the Stamp Act.
Or even May 16th to immortalize the end of the successful conclusion of the six-year uprising of the regulators in the Carolinas.
There are many, many options for a date that Stuart Rhodes and his gun weirdo friends could choose, but he chose April 19th.
They chose this date because it was the day when their version of justification And they fantasize about being able to relive that so desperately.
Yep.
unidentified
Scholars of the Revolutionary War would probably be unlikely to say that the war started with the battles of Lexington and Concord.
They would probably be likelier to say that the escalation to a shooting war started then.
That is why the date resonates so much for these militia patriot folks, because they want that to happen again.
If they didn't, then they'd probably have a more robust analysis of the forces that led up to the eventual shot heard around the world, as opposed to just talking about how the British were going to seize a weapons cache, and that started the war.
It's fucking nuts.
For people so obsessed with the Revolution who scream about the answer to 1984 being 1776, it's wild that I have never heard Alex bring up the Intolerable Acts.
I've never heard him bring up the Townsend Acts, or how the Suffolk Resolves placed the Patriots of Massachusetts into a state of open rebellion against the British.
So of course the fucking British were going to try and seize a cache of weapons.
I've never heard any of that from him.
None of this sort of analysis.
Their argument is stupid, and I suspect that it's partially that way because their argument isn't sincere.
The idea that gun confiscation caused the American Revolution is not something that anybody could seriously argue on the merits, but it works really well if what you really want to do is mask your underlying desire to kill your political rivals and you need a justification.
That seems to be what's going on here.
And if it weren't, I think Stuart would have probably chose a different date for his imaginary end of three-month preparation nonsense.
I think these people belie what they're so interested in with the way they present history.
Just Alex being very defensive about his coverage of the meteor, and then Stuart Rhodes yelling about guns, being really fun.
So now we get to the 18th, and in much the same way as Alex was very triggered about people talking about his meteor coverage, another bit of criticism.
Of his arguments has come out in the media, and Alex is not happy about this.
There was an AP article, what, Saturday, that ran in newspapers all over the country and was picked up by Fox News, CNN, you name it, all reported on it, saying that I basically made up 1.6 billion bullets.
And they say, well, the conspiracy theorist says this, it's true, sort of, but not really.
And then never say I'm wrong, or never give the proof, just list the 1.6 plus billion bullets, but just say it's no big deal.
Oh man, that guy got caught lying.
You know, he said he saw a red Volkswagen parked in his driveway, and there's the red Volkswagen, and he discredited.
You're like, well, but the red Volkswagen is parked there.
I know, isn't he discredited?
You know, that Alex, he said the sun would come up this morning, and did you see it came up?
Man, he's really discredited.
I mean, their propaganda has now reached cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs level.
So here again, we have another instance of Alex trying to complain about the media covering him unfairly.
In this case, it's related to his constant argument that the federal government is buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, stockpiling it so they can wage war against the American people.
It's strange how the number 1.6 keeps coming up.
1.6 million people represent 1% of gun owners who will kill cops if gun control measures are passed.
The government is buying up 1.6 billion bullets.
This is the sort of thing that I suspect is going to drive any numerologist who might be listening completely insane.
Alex, his complaints about the media's coverage of him are, once again, based on a very willful misunderstanding of what the articles are saying.
They agree with Alex that, yes, the government was buying 1.6 billion bullets, but his conclusion was stupid, and that very easily available facts contradict his stories that he tells in order to escalate paranoia.
All of the right-wing sites that cover the ammunition purchase constantly frame it as Obama buying all these bullets, as if he was personally building up a cash.
And again, that's intentional.
In reality, what happened was that the government had put out requests for people to bid on contracts to provide a very large number of bullets, presumably around the $1.6 billion number that Alex cites.
It might be less than that, but I'm not really interested in splitting hairs.
The reason that people are unwilling to say that Alex is right, despite him being pretty much right about the government ammo buy, is because all the stuff he says they're buying it for.
He creates hysteria and paranoia around this imagined intention behind the purchase, when the truth is that they were buying the ammo for training and shooting range purposes, and that the contracts they were looking to fill were for the next five years.
It's not like they wanted 1.6 billion bullets to show up ready to go tomorrow.
It was over the next...
The course of half a decade.
And their idea was that if they could lock in a contract with a huge purchase, the federal government might be able to get a better price on them.
At first glance, $1.6 billion is a gigantic number.
On second glance, it's still a gigantic number.
But if you start to consider how many federal law enforcement agencies there are and how many agents need ammunition to train and stay trained, if that number is reflecting a five-year supply for all those purposes, it doesn't really seem like that crazy a number after all.
Now, if you want to have a conversation about how insane it is that our law enforcement practices revolve so heavily around weaponry and how maybe we should disarm the police, I'm down with that conversation.
That's a very different argument than the one Alex is making.
I was going to say, you know, like, the fact that it is, the fact that it gradually becomes less, you know, ridiculous and insane, that it's 1.6 billion.
Seems ridiculously normalizing to something that is really, really bad to me.
So the media was taking issue with Alex insisting that the bullets were for the government's use in a war against the patriots, which is a very, you know, especially when a very reasonable explanation is readily available.
They were pointing out that he was sort of right, because that's probably the most generous way to say it.
They might say he's right about a fact and wrong about an interpretation, but if I were running those media outlets, I probably would not have been so diplomatic.
I probably would have said that he was using a fact to lie, because that's what he's doing.
Isn't that fascinating how over the past few years of Trump we've gone in many circles from being like, we need to treat him fairly and we don't say that he lied.
We say that he mismanaged his facts or twisted things and now we're at the point where most news outlets are willing to just be like, Trump lied about that.
Discussion that's going on in the clip that he plays is someone, I don't know who it is, on Reliable Sources, like, why the fuck would Piers Morgan even book Alex Jones on his show?
They know that we represent what's left of America.
We understand the globalists.
We know their game plan.
We have millions of listeners.
We're growing exponentially.
They want to assassinate our character.
With the average Sally soccer mom, that's who watches CNN, on average about 108,000 viewers, total shadow of itself, but still it has authority with some bumpkins.
Yeah, because what he's doing is he's responding to a false presentation of these articles, and then he's saying that they say that he said that they attacked Russia.
It's like, when did I say that?
When did I say that?
Right.
unidentified
And my response to that is like, hey, when did they say that you said that?
And then I'm going to jump ahead towards the end of the episode now because Alex gets a caller later who Alex complains about how the media is lying about him.
And the caller has a really interesting response to it.
And the other aspect of that, I believe, also is pretty germane to cults, is that when the authority of the cult leader is called into question, there's some sort of dismissiveness or punishment.
Yeah.
And we see that in another caller.
unidentified
I have one more question.
I think it was 21.6 million bullets that Paul Watson had reported that the DHS had purchased.
Yeah, and it's one of those things that reveals every cult leader's deep and abiding insecurity as the driver behind all of this, that they never feel comfortable, and so they try and create this bubble where they always feel comfortable.
So Alex does this long rant, and I didn't even realize as I was listening to it that it was based on what that caller we just heard challenged him about.
Until in the middle of it, he discusses like, yeah, that caller, you know, he said we're not right.
And I'm like, oh my god, this is all in response to that caller.
So I warned you at the beginning of this episode that there was going to be a portion that was going to be difficult, and we have arrived at it.
So if you are particularly sensitive about maybe some fucked up topics, now might be a time you might want to question whether you want to skip ahead 20 minutes.
Many of you probably know who David Clark is, and if not, he's the sheriff who used to show up on Fox News sometimes and wear a cowboy hat with fake decorative military medals he'd just given himself.
He gained a fair amount of attention when he spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2016 and at CPAC in 2017, and he also started to imply pretty heavily that he was in consideration for a position with Trump's Department of Homeland Security.
That position never materialized, and we can all consider ourselves lucky that it did not, because David Clark is a fucking madman, and would probably be in consideration for worst modern sheriff if Joe Arpaio didn't exist.
Before he was the sheriff, David Clark was a Milwaukee patrol cop, joining the force in 1978.
As he rose through the ranks, Clark was very careful to present a manicured image to the media, and it paid off when he was selected to replace Lev Baldwin, who retired as sheriff of Milwaukee County in 2002, in the middle of his term.
From that point on, Clark ramped up his media presentation even further, expertly staging photo shoots, seeding stories that made the department look good into the media, and always being seen in a full uniform.
However, behind that facade was a very different person.
A retired detective who worked with Clark told Milwaukee Magazine, "The people who love him don't know him.
People who know him don't like him at all.
When he was in consideration for sheriff in 2002, he suspiciously wasn't endorsed by the Milwaukee Police Association, even though he was the only Milwaukee police officer running, which I think speaks volumes.
There have always been warning signs that Clark might be a really bad dude.
In 1994, Clark was accused of using excessive force against a 15-year-old boy.
The child's mother filed a complaint after Clark, who was off duty, allegedly chased her son and his friends down, drew his gun on them, and made them lie on the ground.
The boy was one of five kids Clark saw throwing rocks at cars.
Accounts vary, with the mother saying Clark kicked her son in the head and side, causing bruised ribs, and Clark claiming he just, quote, used his foot to turn over one boy, which to my ears kind of sounds like a cop politely describing kicking someone.
Even though the city is technically within the county.
One of Sheriff Clark's big things was expanding the role of the Sheriff's Department to involve itself in city matters.
As Milwaukee County Supervisor Gary Broderick put it, quote, He's imposed himself on some other law enforcement agencies, and it's uninvited.
It would be one thing if he was doing a great job with the normal responsibilities of the Sheriff's Office, and he just wanted to share his excellence with these other struggling departments.
But that was definitely not the case.
According to Milwaukee Magazine, in the first few months of Clark's first term, quote, one of his deputies got into a scuffle at the airport with Police Chief Jones.
A convicted murderer rattled a gun from a deputy in a downtown courtroom, then wounded the deputy before being shot dead by a police officer.
And at Wappin State Prison, two Milwaukee prisoners escaped from a van driven by two of Clark's deputies.
And sure, you could make the argument that it was just stuff that happened at the beginning of his term.
It's probably all just stuff that was lingering from Lev Baldwin's previous term, and Clark just hadn't had enough time to sort things out.
And you'd be wrong, because things got way, way worse as Clark's term in office continued.
On September 13, 2010, an epileptic man had a seizure while restrained in sheriff's custody.
Officers didn't seem to care or were so completely clueless that their actions made things worse.
41-year-old James Perry died, and no one was held responsible.
On April 24, 2016, Terrell Thomas died while in custody in the Milwaukee County Jail.
The medical examiner's office will go on to declare the case a homicide, and when you get into the details, it's pretty easy to see why.
Thomas died of dehydration nine days after being arrested and brought to the jail.
Thomas had been arrested on suspicion of shooting a man, but hadn't been charged with anything yet.
He was also bipolar, so his behavior in the jail had been deemed fitting to place him in solitary confinement, which on its own would be enough for me to say, fuck David Clark.
The guards would claim that they did what they did because Thomas had previously tried to flood his cell, but I don't believe that has an explanation for why they shut off the water to his cell.
Fellow inmates told the Journal Sentinel newspaper that they could hear Thomas begging for water for days before he died.
And given the fact that he died of dehydration, I think it's a pretty good bet that they didn't give him any.
This treatment of a person is completely horrifying, regardless of what they may or may not have done to end up in custody.
The idea of being incarcerated somewhere, put in solitary confinement, then dehydrated to death over the span of days is a terror that no one should have to live through.
In the end, three jail employees were charged for Thomas' death, and Milwaukee County paid out $6.75 million in a settlement, but David Clark was never held responsible in any way, which is a travesty.
In July 2016, Sade Swayzer was incarcerated and pregnant.
Her newborn child died in that county jail.
In December 2015, Jennifer Dawson's newborn child suffered a similar fate after guards failed to provide appropriate health care.
That same year, Kristen Feibrink died of alcohol and heroin withdrawal in the county jail in Milwaukee.
There is a serious pattern of negligence and outright brutality that was allowed to exist under Sheriff Clark's watch, and it's all sickening shit.
In 2017, the Milwaukee County paid a $6.7 million settlement to a woman who alleged she was raped by a guard in David Clark's prison multiple times while she was incarcerated there.
At the time of her incarceration and assault, she was 19 years old and pregnant.
She eventually gave birth in prison and unsuccessfully sued the county for the fact that she was made to give birth while shackled.
This wasn't the only person who suffered this kind of treatment.
It's estimated that at least 40 women who have given birth in David Clark's jail have had to do so while handcuffed through labor.
Sheriff David Clark is an absolute monster, and if he had a shred of humanity in him, he would have resigned long before any of these people had to suffer what they did.
But he didn't.
Instead, he defended the practice of handcuffing women in labor and doesn't seem to think that he's had anything to do with the completely out of line and disgusting organization that he was in charge of.
You may notice that a lot of these problems seem to have gotten worse towards the end of his time as sheriff.
And probably that's because, by then, he was kind of phoning it in in favor of becoming a national media figure.
In 2015, he launched a podcast called The People's Sheriff on Glenn Beck's Blaze Network.
Weirdly, that same year, Sheriff Clark went on a six-day trip to Russia as part of the NRA delegation.
He was paid at least $6,000 to go on that trip from the group Right to Bear Arms, which was the group run by Maria Butina, who pled guilty in December 2018 to felony charges of conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian state and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
I have legitimately no idea what he was doing there or what any of that means, but it doesn't seem cool.
Clark was sheriff of Milwaukee County from 2002 to 2017.
One of the likely reasons he was able to stay in office so long was he was registered as a Democrat, even though he was very obviously a far-right conservative.
In 2003, he cheered on the Iraq War, going so far as to speak at a Support Our Troops rally with Scott Walker and Paul Ryan, where he expressed his awe for George W. Bush's, quote, will and courage.
Milwaukee is an insanely Democrat-leaning area.
The county has only swung Republican in three presidential elections since 1912, and two of those three times were Dwight Eisenhower.
Registering as a Democrat and being the complete opposite is a really smart move there, particularly once you're already in office.
You generally win any primary based on incumbency bias and name recognition.
Then in the general election, it's you versus a Republican.
This is exactly what you see in every election cycle for David Clark.
Relatively narrow wins in the primary and crushing landslides in the general election.
I'm not saying that this is what he did, but if you were a manipulative, power-hungry piece of shit, your plans might look exactly like what David Clark did.
When he stepped down as sheriff, Clark immediately took a position as a senior advisor for the Trump-backing super PAC, America First Action.
In 2017 to 2018 alone, right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife gave $10 million to that super PAC.
They also received a lot of donations from America First Policies, the political action committee we talked about a while back that is run by a former Trump campaign official and appears to be infested with Nazis.
They received a lot of donations from that group probably because they are affiliated.
America First Action is the super PAC.
America First Policies is a non-profit organization, but they're basically the same group.
This is a little bit of a non-sequitur.
But also, I know that David Clark is involved with one of Alex Jones' sponsors, Gun Owners for America, the insane version of the NRA run by Alex's buddy, Larry Pratt.
I was going to dig into that a little bit, but if you search for David Clark in Gun Owners for America, the first thing that comes up is a completely batshit article on the Gun Owners for America website.
It features an endorsement blurb from Clark, which is why it comes up in the search results, but the article really isn't about him.
The headline is, quote, Is Gun Owners for America in Your Will?
The article begins, quote, What is one thing you can do now that will ensure that the Second Amendment rights are well defended well into the future?
Answer, putting gun owners of America in your will or trust.
Estate settlements have been vital to the continued success of Gun Owners for America's efforts to defend your gun rights in the present.
It takes a lot of balls to be like, hey man, fuck your children and grandchildren getting an inheritance.
When you die, help us continue to be really weird about guns.
And some of this happened after this interview with Alex, certainly.
But some of it didn't.
Some of it was before.
And some of these indications are very clear in the time before.
There's every reason to have a very serious distrust of David Clark, even in 2013.
There were very serious problems with how he ran his sheriff's department, the encroachment of city police departments, the rhetoric that he was putting out.
It was a very serious concern.
And to see Alex buddying up with him, it's not unexpected, but it's fucked up.
If you see somebody play-acting and wearing fake medals, it's a good thing to assume they're probably either a really good actor or a piece of shit dictator in waiting.
Also, just because this is a fun fact, and Larry Pratt runs Gun Owners for America, and he's in cahoots with Sheriff Clark.
Fun fact, Larry Pratt was super against the move to give Washington, D.C. senators back in 1979.
He was quoted as saying, quote, the amendment would bring in two senators who would probably be minority and would definitely be liberal on gun control.
I was reading this article from 2003, and they quote Scott Walker from before he was governor.
He was just a city council member of some stripe.
And one of the comments that he has is that there's no way that a white sheriff could get away with saying these things about the black democratic leadership.
That PSA that Alex played is not the only PSA that Sheriff Clark made around this 2013 period of time, much to the chagrin of the Milwaukee County Finance Committee.
In 2012, Clark spent over $22,000 on personalized radio announcements, and by June 2013, he was already up to $19,000 of taxpayer money being used so he could grandstand and promote his own personal brand.
Naturally, this led to the Finance Committee voting to ban him from using county money to do this sort of self-aggrandizing bullshit.
Some dum-dums out there were arguing that they were putting a gag order on Clark, but Supervisor Patricia Jurczyk, who started the motion, disagreed, saying, quote, I don't have a bandana big enough to gag the sheriff.
You see, what she's saying is that he's a fucking blowhard.
If you really break it down, it's a sheriff telling people that police can't help them and they better get ready to kill someone breaking into their home, which is something that he strangely glorifies.
That's kind of what I thought I heard there, but I stopped for a second because I was like, there's no way that I just heard a sheriff Send out a PSA that's like, cops aren't going to be there fast enough.
Also in 2012, Clark spent $75,000 of taxpayer money on 565 new Glocks, outfitted with glow-in-the-dark sights.
That was 565 guns for a department of only 275 officers.
County Supervisor John Weishand, Jr. said, quote, unless there was a two-for-one sale, there is absolutely no reason to justify this.
Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee County Deputy Sheriff's Association, made an interesting point.
Namely, that this money could have been better spent helping reinstate laid-off deputies.
But Clark doesn't care about that shit.
Throughout his time in office, he constantly tried to cut costs by shifting responsibilities from sheriff's deputies to lower-paid employees like correctional officers.
Many of the jobs at his Milwaukee County Jail, like monitoring inmates, all those responsibilities are being shifted away from higher paid, more trained employees so that he could save money, all while spending excessively on things he thinks are cool, like glow-in-the-dark gun sights and a horse.
Which also kind of dovetails with these abuses that are happening in his jails.
Is it possible that that has something to do with the less qualified employees who are now in charge of monitoring inmates?
You know, the only person who really needs a vigilante to handcuff them and ensure that they don't hurt the rest of the country is Sheriff David Clark.
We need a group of people to just hold on to him, keep him real tight, give him a bear hug.
Man, it's so ridiculous to me that there are no protections in place because everybody kind of just assumes that, well, we won't elect a psychopath, you know?
Sheriff David Clark, thank you so much for coming on, and thank you for being an example of a real peace officer instead of one of these government types that's there to demonize the Bill of Rights.
I mean, just because Joe Arpaio and David Clark have particularly flamboyant histories, that doesn't mean that all of these sheriffs have gone that far.
Alex is clearly feeding questions in such a way as to be like, now tomorrow I can report that David Clark is along with America's greatest sheriff.
He's on board with our movement.
And the way Clark answers this question about why he would never get involved with gun confiscation is kind of telling.
unidentified
The people of Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody's handgun or rifles or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.
And the reason is, I don't want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American Revolution, the likes of which...
Instead of David Clark supporting not taking guns or not regulating or anything like that, assume that he was a sheriff who did believe that maybe some sort of regulation, gun registration would be an appropriate thing.
He might have the same position that I would do this, but if I did, I'd get killed.
In that circumstance, his ability to express his political belief is being terrorized by a group of people who have made it very clear that if you do anything like this, we will kill every cop in America.
It really banks hard on them believing that the world is going to end before any kind of karma, before there's any kind of comeuppance for their actions.
I'm talking about the left here in Milwaukee County.
And join me arm in arm in calling for longer periods of incarceration for repeat career criminals who have demonstrated over and over again that they're going to get a handgun, they're going to get a firearm, and they're going to perpetrate violence.
The only way that Clark, what he's saying, makes any sense here is if you assume that what he means is that he wants to reduce crime by locking people up forever.
That's the only way he could realistically be advocating for longer sentences being a way to reduce crime or violence.
Studies of repeat criminals have shown that longer sentences do not deter people from re-offending, primarily because a vast majority of criminals don't expect to get caught.
They do not generally adapt their behavior to the assumption of what happens if this crime doesn't go well.
They're generally an optimistic bunch in this sense.
The consistent finding is that the severity of a punishment does not have a determinant of value in terms of it being a deterrent.
But what does is certainty of punishment.
That is to say, crime would be very low if we lived in an authoritarian state because the odds of getting away with a crime would be very slim.
But that's not the kind of world any of us want to live in.
Alex has already voiced strong support for Clark, who is super into civil asset forfeiture, which should be a big problem for Alex.
So it's not surprising to hear Clark expressing another position that is in direct opposition with one of Alex's big things.
Longer prison sentences don't do anything to help lower crime, but you know what they do do?
They drastically raise the prison population.
According to the Sentencing Project, using information from the National Research Council, half of the rise in prison population that occurred between 1980 and 2010 was attributable to the growing obsession in our country with giving criminals longer prison sentences so politicians could posture like they're tough on crime.
Sheriff Clark's dumbass idea about reducing crime with longer prison sentences only makes sense if he's operating off a single variable calculation, and that variable has to be retribution.
He wants to be the one punishing someone very harshly, and he's trying to trick you into thinking he's doing it for your benefit.
Longer, harsher sentences do not deter first-time criminals because they don't expect to get caught.
They don't deter repeat criminals for the same reason, and because just think about it for one fucking second.
If you're in the mindset where you're going to commit a robbery, do you think that there's a single bit of difference between 20 and 30 years in prison being the possible sentences you could be looking at if you get caught?
If you're okay with 20, the other 10 isn't going to swing you back to your senses.
That's complete nonsense.
And if he's just talking about locking people up until they die or until they're, quote, too old to commit crimes, that's fucking insanely cruel and would end up ballooning the cost of incarceration past the point that society could probably carry it.
As people get older, the health-related costs they have go up, and that rises even higher in prison populations.
The cost of incarcerating people who are reaching the ages where many of them have steep medical expenses is a really dumb idea societally, especially considering all you would be doing is wasting money that could be better used on initiatives and programs that work to solve the problems that lead to crime.
Of Milwaukee County, that's not a radical sheriff.
We've gotten radical anti-liberty people in everywhere to where someone who is what America is based on looks weird and sounds strange, basically, to the general public when they stand up for what's right.
For the thousandth time, this is not a real quote.
Shit, this isn't even a fake Jefferson quote.
This is a fake George Washington quote.
So, George Washington was said to have said the following in an address to Congress.
But keep in mind, this is a very fake and completely made-up quote.
Quote, firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.
The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizens' firearms are indelibly related.
From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.
The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference.
They deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
This is what the consensus is on this quote, that it's from a piece written in 1926 by PewDiePie by a guy named C.S. Wheatley in a magazine called Hunter, Trader, Trapper.
But Wheatley never tried to pass that off as a quote from Washington.
The interpretation that it's a Washington quote is an intentional misreading of his opinion article.
He's talking about Washington addressing Congress, and then that paragraph is there, but it's not in quotes.
I don't know anything about C.S. Wheatley, so I don't know what his intentions were.
And from whatever thing I can tell, it doesn't seem like he was trying to run a con.
It seems like those are his words and his feelings, which is why this is interesting, because those are not Washington or Jefferson's words.
They are C.S. Wheatley's feelings about the history of guns, which would not have nearly as much gravitas were Alex to quote this correctly.
So, also, one dead giveaway that this is a fake quote that anybody should be able to tell, it's a fake quote when it's attributed to Washington, that is, is the mention of prairie wagons, which are certainly not something that would have been relevant in Washington's lifetime, seeing as the French owned the Great Plains and Washington would be dead before the Louisiana Purchase went down.
Also in Washington's lifetime, the use of the word pilgrim to describe the first colonists who came over was not very common.
That terminology didn't become popular until the early 1800s.
These sorts of indications should be red fucking flags.
Over the years, this fake quote was passed around, but where it picked up the most traction was being a big piece of rhetoric put out by the militia of Montana.
To quote D.J. Malloy's book, American Extremism, History, Politics, and the Militia Movement, quote, Not only does the militia of Montana's employment of these founding fathers typify the militia's arguments in respect to the Second Amendment and the importance of militias in resisting tyranny, it also provides another telling illustration of the extent to which the militias seek to identify themselves with the dominant tradition of American history.
The militia of Montana's desire to receive the approbation of these founders seemingly overwhelms the demands of historical accuracy.
Madison's words from the Federalist 46 are compressed and misquoted slightly, and those attributed to Washington and Jefferson are simply invented.
Malloy goes on to make a really good point.
There are a lot of quotes that militia folks use from this time period that are real, from people like Richard Henry Lee or George Mason or Patrick Henry.
But what do all those dudes have in common that people like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, who the militia folk constantly make up quotes for, don't?
The people who the militia community quote accurately are pretty much all anti-federalists.
Or to put simply, they were the people back in the late 1700s who were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution.
The anti-federalists are really who the militia people are most in line with, but they're largely not seen as the founders of the country by most people who have a basic view of the roots of America.
People like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, those are the people that people associate with the founding of the country, and they were all federalists.
So, in order to associate themselves with the rightful lineage of the country's founding, these patriot militia folk make up quotes that mirror their beliefs and attribute them to Federalists.
If I had to guess, I would say that Alex's constant misquoting of Jefferson and clearly distorted view of history is the result of him either knowingly trying to attach himself to that Federalist legacy, or him being so dumb that he's just been fooled by militia websites and newsletters he read growing up that were doing exactly that.
So I think that's probably a pretty good explanation for why Alex is constantly yelling fake quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
But they don't want to be like, we are like these people who were against the Constitution.
They don't want that.
So they create a fictitious connection with the people who were the founders and writers and ratifiers of the Constitution that they idolize and fetishize.
When it's kicked out of the Kuiper Belt outside the edge of the solar system or closer in the asteroid belt, whatever comet or whatever comes by and knocks them out of the regular orbit generally knocks some other stuff with them.
And so that's why you've seen the big stone meteors coming in.
Of course, it doesn't matter what I just said.
CNN and Atlantic Wire will just say that I said aliens did it or something.
All credible astronomers have been very clear that DA-14 and the Russian meteor Chelyabinsk had completely different orbits and had nothing to do with each other.
To quote NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, quote, the fireball was not associated with asteroid 2012 DA-14, which made a very close flyby of Earth just 16 hours later.
This is known because the two objects approached the Earth from completely different directions and had entirely different orbits around the Sun, and their compositions are dissimilar.
The timing of their arrival was certainly head-scratching, but it's a fucking big universe out there, and crazy coincidences sometimes do happen.
The Chelyabinsk meteor caught everyone off guard because it was below the threshold size for bodies that are monitored by the International Space Agencies.
That's why it came out of nowhere.
Which actually prompted a lot of people to start a conversation about like We need to start monitoring smaller shit.
It wasn't at all a criticism that was being made by the mainstream media, but Alex absolutely deserved someone calling him out for his reporting that these things were at all connected.
Because the claim that they're connected isn't just some sort of slight inaccuracy or flub that means nothing.
It's part of the dangerous rhetoric that has no basis in reality that Alex puts out constantly.
Coming from Alex, the claim that the Chelyabinsk meteor was a piece of DA-14 is meant to further his argument that you can't trust any experts.
They told you that everything was going to be fine as DA-14 made a pass by the planet, but how about you tell that to the thousand or so people in Russia who were injured by Chelyabinsk, the explosion?
What appears to be just a simple instance of Alex being wrong is actually a functional piece of his anti-media propaganda.
Which is built on a misunderstanding or just an outright lie that these two things were connected when they weren't.
It's easy to gloss over this as just like, hey, you know, he's just dumb.
And so then you take that inability to feel shame or take any responsibility for anything and turn that into a weapon towards the media that is trying to get you to feel those things, and you wind up cutting them off, and the people who listen to you create a fucking cult, and then everybody becomes a goddamn sheriff fucking Clark.
Do you remember when people used to be like, I heard Obama has a limp handshake, and that's why we shouldn't like them, instead of, 22 people have credibly accused Obama of rape.
And if I had a radio show where I talked about how Bush was terrible all the time, and some caller was like, hey man, I know a dude who met him and he had a limp handshake, I'd be like, get the fuck off the line.
Yeah, because you don't want to encourage that sort of behavior in your callers, and then all of a sudden you're like, now it's acceptable to call in with bullshit.
Like, again, when we're seeing the rise of Trump and how much he loves Trump and how much he's trying to emulate that behavior of just complete narcissistic self-aggrandizement, you know, then it starts to feed into him, and if you don't have any shame, like both he and Trump, then...
But what's interesting to me about that is that is narcissistic acting out to a T. But it also has the appearance of like, yeah, that is a big show on CNN for you to go on, and people were talking about it, for better or worse.
I bet you're a great person who's willing to let go of that probably terrible oil paid to get a reasonable price to just a nice podcaster out of Chicago who's looking for new decor.