Dave Smith critiques progressive prosecutors for securing $250,000 bail for Jose Alba, a bodega worker charged with murder after defending his property, arguing they criminalize self-defense while legalizing theft. He contrasts this hypocrisy with Joe Biden's past drug war stance amidst leaked videos of Hunter Biden using drugs and engaging in explicit acts. Smith alleges a coordinated cover-up by the CIA, big tech, and corporate media suppressed evidence of Russian disinformation to protect the Bidens, suggesting the scandal reveals systemic corruption rather than simple personal misconduct. Ultimately, the episode asserts that true liberty requires punishing violent criminals and defending property rights against an overreaching state. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
America's Next Enemy00:02:01
Fill her up.
You're listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gash Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Heart of the Problem.
I am your host, the most consistent motherfucker you know, Libertarian Tupac, Dave Smith.
And he is, of course, the king of the caulks, COVID Jesus, Robbie the Fire Bernstein, coming to us from a nice new location there.
Hell yeah.
I'm on the road, man.
Pittsburgh was fun as hell and got some big shows coming up.
Porch tour.
Hell yeah, dude.
Where can people get tickets for all that?
Click the link in the episode description.
Big one this week is by CPU God in Nashville, and he's got all the Hunter Biden files.
So come out for the live pod.
It's going to be me, BK Chris, looking at all the Hunter Biden porn you can get your hands on.
None of the kids' stuff, though.
We're going to get rid of that first.
And then Atlanta after that.
Oh, very nice.
Very nice.
So, yeah.
And of course, this weekend, man, I got Freedom Fest coming up, which is the big one.
Gonna be a ton of great guests there.
Kennedy is hosting the whole thing.
Cool.
A bunch of great speakers, myself included.
And then in a couple of weeks in August, I'll be at Revolution 2022 for Young Americans for Liberty.
Another great event.
They got Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Jacobs, a whole bunch of cool people speaking.
So very much looking forward to that.
So yeah, okay.
For today's episode, we could get into some of the Hunter Biden stuff in a little bit.
Working Bodega Violence00:12:28
And that's a fun story.
But I actually, I wanted to open talking about a local story in New York City that got some national attention that I thought was a very, a very interesting story because it brings up a very important dynamic, particularly for libertarians that we need to grapple with and kind of understand.
So I want to try to break this down as best I can.
The story I'm referring to is a gentleman named Jose Alba or Jose Alba, I should say.
Jose Alba.
Sorry, I said.
Boy's got skills.
Huh?
Boy's got skills.
Yeah, look, he fucking pulled, he pulled it off in the moment, I suppose.
So anyway, you know what I say is Jose Aldo from the UFC made me always, because he pronounced it Jose made me always say Jose wrong now.
But anyway, Jose Alba.
So Jose Albo is a 61-year-old Dominican guy who works at a bodega in uptown in New York City.
And he was recently charged with second-degree murder and sent to Rikers Island.
The video of the incident was made public.
Basically, what happened was this guy, a younger guy, I mean, you know, this Jose Alba is 61.
This guy was like 30 or something like that.
Big dude was evidently his girlfriend came in to get a bag of chips and to put it on her EBT card, her food stamp card, and it was declined because she didn't have any money left on the card.
This led to an altercation.
I guess the guy was like, Yeah, you can't get these chips because you don't have any money, which is a crazy concept.
Yeah, so then the boyfriend comes in, he jumps behind the counter and starts beating this 61-year-old man who, in the scuffle, gets his hands on a big knife.
You can see in the video, it's a crazy, you know, like altercation.
They're in the middle of a fight.
He ends up stabbing him, I think, twice in the gut and once in the neck, fatally, kills him.
And yeah, so the cops come.
What would seem like an obvious self-defense case where no charges would be filed?
They charge him with second-degree murder and they sent him to Rikers Island.
And initially, his bail was posted at a quarter million dollars.
So I mean, right away, there was a backlash to this because this is insane.
I mean, just insane by any reasonable person's standards.
I mean, first of all, what the hell?
You know, how could you not see this as a self-defense case?
Here you have a younger, bigger man, clearly the aggressor in the situation.
He jumps behind the counter.
He's beating this guy up.
The guy gets a knife.
It's not as if there was, and you can see this clearly from the video.
It's not as if there was any opportunity to even say, well, I think I'll stab you here rather than here.
He's being thrown around and hitting him wherever he can get him.
The idea that that would be a crime.
You're like, so I suppose then the position would be that your responsibility there is to just let this dude beat the shit out of you and what hope that he doesn't do it that badly.
Well, I just, I guess you guys just got to let this guy beat the shit out of you.
You're a 61-year-old.
You just have to let some young man beat the shit out of you.
And what, let's hope he doesn't end up stomping me after I'm unconscious on the ground.
Let's hope he doesn't, you know, hospitalize or kill me.
I mean, this is just insane.
This is, and in many ways, it's like, you know, I think you could certainly make an argument that the right to the right to self-defense is the most basic of all rights.
Because without that, what type of liberty do you have if you don't have the right to defend your own self and life?
So anyway, there was tremendous backlash to this story.
To the point that there was a bunch of money being raised.
They set up a GoFundMe because as you could imagine, you set a quarter million dollar bail for somebody who is a 61-year-old who works at a bodega.
Pretty unlikely they're going to be able to come up with $250,000.
So they start raising a bunch of money on GoFundMe.
GoFundMe then shuts down the fundraiser because they say, well, you're not allowed to raise money for a criminal defense on GoFundMe, although they've allowed many people to raise money for their defense on GoFundMe.
So that gets shut down.
Now, to his credit, the mayor, this Adams fellow, who's the new mayor of New York City.
So Mayor Eric Adams stepped in, kind of caught this guy's back.
Last I had heard, they ended up reducing his bail down to $50,000.
And it looks like he'll be able to get out.
So that's a positive note at the end of it.
But there was something very interesting that all of this kind of revealed.
Anyway, Rob, were you familiar with this story?
I assume you've heard about it.
Yeah, I watched all of it.
And right off the bat, cops are not reliable enough that you can just leave, you know, your own safety to the cops.
We've seen them not show up for stuff.
And then I feel like they're starting, you know, and they're aware of this.
Like, you can't beat up a cab driver or like an MTA employee.
Like, there's certain people who are almost because they're government workers, like protected class.
But if you're a guy at a bodega and you're behind the thing, like forget being attacked.
I almost feel like if someone just steps into your personal territory, you should almost have like an instant right to self-defense.
Like if you're saying, hey, I'm not looking for trouble and a guy steps behind the counter.
It would just seem to me someone steps back there, like beyond them even striking at you, which then becomes obvious that it's self-defense.
Like, I don't know how this wasn't instantly thrown out.
Yeah, that's, that's, I mean, I basically have the same opinion.
And think about it.
I mean, like, first off, you're clearly where you're not supposed to be.
Then you're coming in aggressively, violently, and to a place where the guy's cornered.
He's cornered.
Then also throwing into it that, um, you know, that the guy's younger and much bigger than him.
I mean, what are your options for, you know, that the other guy's got 60 years of working at a bodega?
That that's some, that's some anger in there.
Yeah, fucking the wrong guy.
Yeah, I bet you're right.
But I also look at it like, um, from my perspective, it's just like when you have a situation where there's, um, you know, you have one group, the, the boyfriend and the girlfriend there, who are trying to buy something on an EBT card.
And the other guy, you know, who is this is like the dynamic I think of right away is a 61-year-old living at a bodega.
I mean, excuse me, working at a bodega.
The truth is, from most of our perspectives, somebody who's on food stamps versus somebody who's working at a bodega is they're not in drastically different financial situations, but one of them is doing the right thing and one of them is doing the wrong thing.
You know what I mean?
Like one of them is like actually like working a really like not fun job to try to probably making minimum wage.
You know what I mean?
And the other one is furious that there's no more chips that she can buy off taxpayers.
And then on top of that, the one who's, you know, mooching off the system rather than contributing to it, it then goes and gets violent.
And then the system comes in and sides with the, you understand what I'm saying?
Like sides with the people.
It's just such an outrage, such an outrage that they would like, you know, like you can't even, you're the one who's actually doing the right thing and contributing to society and, you know, working a job.
And then the system will come and turn on you for not starting a fight, not living off taxpayers, for just defending yourself.
You're now, you know, I mean, who knows what's going to happen with this guy?
Hopefully all the charges end up getting dropped, but we'll see.
It's such a wild level of dysfunction.
The, hey, I'm here because my, my, my girlfriend said I have to fight you now.
So now I'm going to fight you.
Like no inquiry into what happened.
It's just what a weird way to live where wife comes back and goes, hey, just had a thing.
So you got to go fight this guy.
And then you just show up like, all right, here to fight now.
Yep.
It's well, it's, yeah, it's pretty wild.
But there's something that was Like to me, kind of the bigger political issue around all of this is that the prosecutor who decided to pursue the second-degree murder charges against this guy is a nun called a progressive prosecutor.
And there's these group of progressive prosecutors around the country, particularly in California and New York, but in many blue areas around the country, who have really risen to prominence.
They've won a lot of like district attorney's offices under this banner of progressive prosecutors.
This is, if you remember, what Kamala Harris pretended to be.
She was never one of these.
She was like a law and order.
The progressives are like anti-jail.
I thought that was their whole thing is reform and just be nice to the criminals.
Well, this is what's interesting is that's more or less right.
And they kind of started as they were rising up by pushing a lot of beliefs that you certainly could say that there was some overlap between some of the stuff that libertarians, excuse me, there was some overlap between a lot of the things libertarians talk about and a lot of things these progressive prosecutors talked about.
And I must admit to myself, there were some of them who were somewhat attractive to me that was like, you know, they were saying things that you're like, look, this is this is really a fair point.
Many of the things that they rail against were harsh sentences for nonviolent drug charges, particularly for drug possession charges.
There was a lot of talk about prison reform, you know, at certain prisons that were really bad and that should be, you know what I mean, kept in somewhat more reasonably humane conditions.
There was a lot of talk about abolishing cash bail, which, you know, you can certainly, there's arguments on pro and con, you know, in terms of cash bail, but you could certainly make a very compelling argument, I think, that there's something a little bit fucked up and that about a system where you can get out of jail if you have the money, but you can't if you don't.
That like there's there's an honest argument there to be made that that is really unfair to working class and poor people, that that is the test.
You know what I mean?
Now, there's there's an argument against that as well, but I'm just saying there's certainly some merit to that point.
There's a kicker on the violent, the violent nature of the crimes because I think there is a big problem right now of people being let out without bail and then like instantly recommitting.
I would think conceptually, I thought the idea with bail is it was kind of on a sliding scale.
New Healthcare Model00:02:14
So it, you know, the idea is that they don't want you making a run for it.
So if you were super rich, you would have to put up a shit ton of bail.
And if you didn't have any money, you didn't have to put up all that much.
I thought conceptually that was kind of the way it operated.
I think that it's, there's a lot of judges' discretion involved.
So I suppose it could operate that, although in certain situations, like the one we just mentioned, it certainly doesn't seem to be taken into account.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is CrowdHealth.
Your health is being bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Politicians, hospitals, big pharma and health insurance companies make huge profits at the expense of your health.
Crowd health isn't health insurance, and that's why it works.
There are no deductibles, networks, complicated exclusions, or co-pays.
You can see any doctor you want, pay the first 500 and submit any bills from there.
The crowd health community takes care of the rest.
CrowdHealth is a new way to pay for healthcare.
No doctor networks, no huge premiums or high deductibles, no surprises.
You pay one low monthly total to fund your account, less than $200 a month for most people.
100% of your monthly contributions directly funds and reduces the healthcare costs of the community.
Unlike insurance, CrowdHealth succeeds by keeping its members happy, not driving up the price.
CrowdHealth helps members shop for great care at a fair price, make payments to doctors and members as quickly as possible, and negotiates on the community's behalf when unexpected bills arise.
It totally reverses the vicious incentives that got the healthcare system into this mess in the first place.
So stop supporting the broken health insurance system with your hard-earned dollars.
Join CrowdHealth today to experience freedom from health insurance.
Right now, you can get your first six months for just $99 a month when you sign up at joincrowdhealth.com/slash P-O-T-P.
That's almost 50% off the normal price and a lot less than a high-deductible healthcare plan.
That's joincrowdhealth.com/slash P-O-T-P.
CrowdHealth is not health insurance.
It's a totally different way of paying for healthcare.
Terms and conditions may apply.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Bail and Property Rights00:15:31
So the thing is, here's the dynamic of what happened: basically, although a lot of these progressive prosecutors were saying some things that sounded a lot like what libertarians are talking about, there was not, you know, it's not as if we had a rise of libertarian prosecutors.
They're progressives.
And so, of course, as is the nature of progressives, they ruin everything.
And so, what happened basically was in California and in New York City, all over the place, what they've done is, particularly in California, what they've done is gone quite a bit further than the initial promise of, you know, okay, we're going to lock people up for long sentences for, you know, possession of drugs.
We're not, we're going to look into, you know, prison reform or all this stuff or whatever.
And what they've actually ended up doing is in many of these places, essentially legalized shoplifting, where they've gone, you will not be arrested for like in some areas unless you shoplift.
Huh?
I saw it firsthand in Seattle.
It was so weird.
Guy walked into a store at a guitar center, picked something up, and like they tried to like corner him, kind of, but didn't really want to stand in his way.
Guy walked right out with it.
It was really weird to see.
So here's right.
So here's what's what's happened basically: is they've they've in effect legalized uh shoplifting and criminalized self-defense or defense of property.
So this is where things go off the fucking rail rails.
And this is just pure insanity.
Like, so they're they're actually they're like, if you shoplift, it depends on the area you're in.
In some areas, it'll be like under $900 worth of stuff.
We're just going to give you a ticket.
They're not going to arrest you.
So, okay, those people are basically like, whatever, I'll risk a ticket and go get $900 worth of stuff.
That's fine.
But then, if your security ends up roughing them up in any way to like stop them, they will come in and arrest you.
So now these stores, it's led to things like I think CBS and some other big chains have just straight up abandoned certain areas.
They're just like, okay, we're going to close our stores and leave because this is not worth it for us to operate here under these conditions.
And in situations like this, they're very, very hard on people exercising their self-defense.
So, the crazy thing about this Jose Alba, Jose Alba situation here is that this guy, you know, these progressive prosecutors who are all kind of like, you know, saying some reasonable stuff as they get elected or as they get appointed, depending on what jurisdiction they're in, they, when it comes to defending yourselves, will throw you in Rikers Island,
the prison that they were talking about closing because of its god-awful conditions.
And they will give you $250,000 of bail for these same, I mean, I guess it's the judge who does that technically, but like they'll prosecute you and lead toward this agreement.
The same people who are talking about abolishing cash bail.
All of a sudden, there's no problem with bail.
There's no problem with Rikers when it's somebody exercising self-defense, which again, from the libertarian point of view, ought to be, if not the most important, right up there with the most important rights to protect.
And so it doesn't really make sense because you're not at high risk of the guy doing it again.
You know what I mean?
Like he would firstly, what he did wasn't even wrong because he would have to be provoked again.
So what you're going to tell, like, it just, it really makes no sense.
I mean, the idea of bail is that you want the guy, I guess, not to be a flight risk so you can prosecute him, or you want to kind of keep him in the system so he's not just out reoffending.
Right.
A guy, a self-defense situation.
It doesn't really make sense.
Yeah.
And look, the truth is the way I look at it, and this would kind of be my beef with bail in general, because I'm like, I really am a pure libertarian in all of these senses.
So I believe that it's if you think somebody is a legitimate violent threat, like they're this person, we cannot let them out because there is a high probability that they will go commit another like heinous violent crime like they just committed, then there shouldn't be bail.
There should be no bail for that person.
And if that's not the case, then I believe you have no right to hold them because people are innocent until proven guilty.
Now, if you, in my, you know, ideal libertarian scenario, and this is kind of like what Rothbard lays out in the um in For a New Liberty, is that if you are if you believe people are innocent until proven guilty, well, then you have that violent criminal and you're saying no, no bail because he's a danger to you know the community.
If it's found that he's not guilty, then you would actually be liable for the time that you held him there because you essentially kidnapped an innocent person.
Whereas in today's insane criminal justice system, you can literally be held for years before your trial.
Then they find you're not guilty and it's like, okay, like you just did two years for a crime you didn't commit, but they're just like, well, we were just holding you, waiting for your trial.
You know, anyway, it's a horrific system, many different levels.
But I think there's a few things going on here, right?
So what happens is, as these progressive prosecutors have taken, have taken over, and particularly because they used a lot of language that sounds kind of libertarian, the risk that we face is that there has been a discrediting of many of the libertarian positions unjustly.
So basically, people now look at it.
And if you start talking about any of these things, they go, yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard this before.
See, far too often, the right-wing response, and I've seen this all over the place.
I've seen this in like Los Angeles, in San Francisco, in Portland, in all of these areas.
They'll look at all the crime and go, yep, that's what happens when you legalize drugs.
That's, you know, that's the problem.
And while they're wrong, you can kind of understand where they're coming from.
It's like these, these progressive prosecutors come up and they go, hey, we're not going to be as tough on these crimes.
And all of a sudden, these places turn into shitholes.
And it's fairly reasonable to take from that that, well, this is what happens when you're not tough on crime.
That was already the kind of conservative default.
So why wouldn't they go back to that?
But so the thing that's important to recognize here is that really this, what you're looking at is not a result of them legalizing drugs.
That's really not what the problem is.
It's not the problem.
The problem overall is there's several very big problems in these areas, okay?
But the problem is not them legalizing drugs.
The problem is them legalizing property crimes, criminalizing self-defense.
And perhaps you could put this in the ballpark of property crimes.
I know there's some libertarians who don't like when I talk about this, but that's okay because I'm right and they're wrong.
That also living on public property, of just allowing homeless camps to like to live.
That has nothing to do with whether drugs are a crime or not.
That has nothing to do with like whether someone who's caught with a little bit of cocaine should go to jail for 30 years or not.
But they certainly shouldn't be allowed to live on the street.
It's just common sense.
And we've talked about this a lot before, but the idea that the libertarian position is that they should be allowed to is just not accurate.
And it makes no sense.
And the fact that, as we all know, on private property, those people would be removed immediately.
And there's no reason why a libertarian who believes in private property rights then therefore has to say that because the government taxed us all to create this property, now there's nothing we can do about it.
And it's not like, obviously, me or you shouldn't have the right, even as taxpayers, me or you shouldn't have the right to just camp out and live in the middle of the street.
You know, this cross section here, this interest, I'm going to take that from me.
I'm just going to lay down on the highway tomorrow, put out a nice pillow and a mattress.
It's like, no, you don't have the right to do that.
And in the same sense, that like, no, like fucking 500 homeless people don't have the right to just take over a city block.
But so this is the issue.
And I just think it's important that libertarians, especially because so many of them came to prominence using somewhat similar rhetoric to what a lot of libertarians talk about, that it's really important that we separate ourselves from this insanity.
Because this insanity is something that if anybody, anybody rightfully is going to dismiss you if you can't separate yourself from that.
So my thing would just be that libertarians should hit very hard and make it very clear that we believe that number one, violent criminals should absolutely be punished, that there should be no leniency for violent criminals.
When I say no leniency, I just mean that like they should not be let right back onto the streets and they should not be given light sentences.
Number two, that there's absolutely nothing about libertarianism that suggests that you have a right to live on public property.
And there's a whole lot about just common sense decency that says you don't.
So we should be loud about that.
I also think that, And probably most of all, that we should really passionately defend the right to self-defense and the right to property defense.
The right, in many ways, the most fundamental right of all, the right to defend yourself, your family, your friends, and your property.
I have no like, you know, if you run into a store and like try to steal $900 worth of shit and you get tackled and or even like tackled and punched and that stuff taken back, I have no problem with that.
And I don't think there's any reason libertarians should.
In order to have like a peaceful society, we understand that you need to have these norms of like non-aggression and respect for private property.
And when you break those norms, somebody has a right to defend themselves and their livelihood.
And in a situation like Jose Alba, that this guy should be cheered as a hero, like legitimately.
Here's a guy.
This is a 61-year-old guy.
I don't know if he's an immigrant or not.
But my guess is that he is.
He's 61.
I don't know how long he's been in the country for, but that's my guess.
A whole lot of those older Dominican guys uptown are immigrants.
He's an immigrant who's working a shit job at a bodega.
He's not fucking starting shit for anyone else.
He's just doing, he's working an honest day's work.
And then you have these fucking thugs who come in who are living off the dole at like to a libertarian.
Is it clear who we would support in this situation?
The aggressor living off the dole or the honorable man who's working a decent job and defends himself.
It's an absolute outrage that they would send this guy to Rikers, that the government would come in and lock him up for defending himself.
It's, you know, appalling.
So anyway, that's my whole fucking rant about this shit, right?
It's like, there's a real problem here.
You know, I see the same thing happen with the defund the police movement.
And you'd have like, you know, this, the, these progressives talking about defund the police.
Then they'd always back off on that and start lecturing you how that defund the police doesn't actually mean defunding the police or whatever.
But there were a few areas where police funding went down.
And then when crime is up, you have the conservatives and the right-wingers going, look, see, this is what happened when this is what happens when you defund the police.
Crime goes up.
Except it's not really true.
Like if you look at some of these areas where budget police budgets were cut, there are some areas where crime went up.
But then you look at other areas where the police budget went up and crime also went up.
So it's very hard to draw a straight line between the funding of these police budgets and the crime going up.
And then in the areas where the crime went up, you realize like, oh, yeah, the police, it's not that their budgets were cut.
It's that they stopped enforcing property violations.
You know what I mean?
Like they stopped.
Oh, yeah, no kidding, crime goes up.
If you're not going to enforce, you know, shoplifting laws, then yeah, more people are going to shoplift.
That's not, that doesn't prove anything about like, and then it gets blamed on the defunding thing.
And you're like, you look at these police departments and they all have like military, like SWAT gear.
And you're like, oh, yeah, that the fact that they had money for that has nothing to do with whether or not crime's going up.
Like they didn't need any of that.
They didn't need any of these fancy toys from the Department of Homeland Security.
That had nothing to like, you could cut all of that out.
And that would not in any way drive crime up.
And in a lot of these areas, too, it's not when they decriminalized pot that the crime shot up.
In fact, the crime didn't shoot up after they decriminalized pot.
It wasn't until they decriminalized shoplifting.
That's when the crime started shooting up.
Know and it's the carjackings, like all these fucking like problems is along with like violent crimes have all been going up in these areas where you know people can't defend themselves and their property because that's been criminalized now.
So, that I just think it's really important for libertarians to get into that gap and explain like how we're not like these progressives and what the real problem is, what's really driving these crime increases.
And also, at the same time, still not give up on our principles that, like, yes, police budgets should be cut in many different areas.
Cops don't need military toys to terrorize citizens with.
And yeah, we also don't need to lock people in jail for nonviolent crimes where they didn't, you know, victimless crimes, where they didn't, you know, aggress against anybody or destroy their property.
But when they do aggress against people or destroy their property, yeah, those people need to be dealt with one way or the other.
Preferably, it would just be to, uh, from my perspective, just to empower citizens to be able to protect themselves.
Um, but it's a weird combination when you have, you know, first off, these areas where gun ownership is already criminalized, right?
Ending Mass Incarceration00:05:06
Which is probably why a guy like Jose Alba has to grab a knife.
You know what I mean? Is because, well, it's not legal to have a gun in your bodega here in New York.
Um, so they've already made it a crime to have a gun to defend yourself.
Now, if you actually defend yourself in these situations, that's going to be a crime too.
This is madness.
And this is, and it's also, by the way, not what these progressive prosecutors ran on.
Like, it's not like they said, hey, we're going to make shoplifting legal and we're going to make defending yourself a crime.
That's not what they said.
What they said was all this reasonable libertarian sounding stuff, but this is what they've done.
So, anyway, I just thought that was important to kind of get that out there.
It's important that libertarians are aware of this because, as is, as is often the case, progressives are very effective at discrediting a lot of our better ideas.
So, I'm curious to know because I wasn't all that aware of these liberal prosecutors, but I do see quite a bit of the left trying to steal libertarian language.
Like it was in that Gavin Newsom ad where he's talking about freedom or like they'll try and re-explain that freedom only exists if government steps in to restrict it.
Otherwise, it's not really freedom.
Like, they're always kind of pulling these tricks.
What were like the actual, I guess, slogans that the progressive prosecutors were running on that sounded libertarian?
Well, one of them in New York City, the big push was decriminalizing marijuana, ending cash bail, and closing Rikers.
Those are the big things.
And Rikers, I mean, if you know about Rikers, it's a prison with which I think they have, you know, I'm not sure someone have to check on this, but there were major investigations.
I think they did clean up some degree of how bad it was.
But if you want to know about how fucked up it was, like, you know, you could look up the Khalif Brower story, Browder, Khalif Browder, who was this kid who was held for like three years in Rikers awaiting trial and was just like, like, tried to commit suicide several times while he was there, ultimately killed himself after he got out.
It's a really, really tragic story.
The problem with uh for a crime that he likely didn't do, um, and that he certainly was never convicted of.
They ultimately ended up dropping the charges before his crime.
So he never had a trial.
They just held him for years.
And the guards there were like every bit as they were like basically gang members at like the guards were basically a gang.
And then there were gangs, you know, in the prison.
It's just like an awful, awful situation.
So that these were some of the things that they were talking about here.
Out in California, there was a lot of talk about similar type things, like leniency on drug charges, ending cash bail, things like that.
Closing Rikers kind of to me focuses on the wrong.
It's like you can close Gitmo, but it doesn't matter if you just ship them to other black sites.
You know what I mean?
It's more ending the practice.
If you just open up some other shit prison or you don't have the resources to house them elsewhere, it seems to me like the bigger issue is actually giving people a speedy trial.
No one's supposed to be held in jail for years waiting on a trial.
That's not the way it's agree with you.
I would agree with you.
The bigger issue, the more fundamental issue that underpins all of this is what should be a crime and what shouldn't be a crime and the right to a speedy trial.
So I completely agree.
But anyway, the point is that it's just really important, I think, that libertarians loudly speak up for the people's right to defend themselves, to defend their property, and speak up against this insanity.
Also, we are getting painted in with it.
I feel like clear laws on this stuff is really helpful.
Like, for example, if you just make a clear law, if someone's standing and protesting on a highway, you can hit them.
That ends pretty fast.
Now, it's going to be tragic the one time some dumb kid decides to have a protest on the highway.
But when you tell the drivers you're 100% allowed to hit that guy, that guy gets hit.
And then it probably never happens again because people know if they go out there, they're going to get hit.
You know what I mean?
And then that's kind of the better of the two options: that we always have open highways versus a gray area of people going out there, standing, and blocking them.
It's kind of the same thing with bodegas.
If you tell the guys, hey, if someone comes behind the thing, that is an act of violence.
Now you can protect yourself and you can even have a gun.
Probably never happens a second time.
Probably doesn't happen all that often.
Just so you know.
And look, if you're going to get obviously the common sense thing here to say is that, like, look, if you, if you're going to, as long as you have, you know, a government and police and all of this shit, what you're going to say is, look, if you step behind this bodega and attack this guy, we are going to prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.
And if this guy defends himself and fucking kills you, we are not going to prosecute him.
Exposing Hunter Biden00:09:25
Like, let that be known.
Like, he has every right to defend himself, and you have zero right to aggress against him, period.
And yes, you're right.
That in itself cleans up a lot of this mess.
That's not to say it'll never happen, but it cleans up a whole lot of this mess.
So that's, you know, to me, this stuff is like fairly obvious and straightforward.
And it's insane.
I mean, look, many people speculate what exactly the intentions are of a lot of this stuff, because you could see, even if your intentions, let's say, hypothetically were good.
You know, you can see out in these areas in California.
Once you see it in practice, wouldn't you like change course if you had good intentions?
You know what I mean?
Go, oh, you know what?
Shit, this isn't working out at all.
People are literally, you know, terrified to walk the streets.
And there's like, we got these homeless encampments with like the fucking plague going around, you know, like, okay, this is a goddamn problem.
So, but, but there isn't an adjustment on that.
And that might indicate to you what some of these people's intentions are.
I don't know.
I'm just saying if I wanted to destroy a society, that might be something that I would push and say, oh, I stand up for the rights of criminals and I stand against the rights of citizens to defend themselves from said criminals.
That might be one of the first things.
All right.
So, switching gears.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Marpipe.
The secret of creative testing is this: no one knows what they're doing.
From CMOs to marketing managers, everyone's making it up.
They're faking it.
And if that's you, you're safe with us.
You can just admit that you don't know, and then you can make your life a whole lot easier and finally know that you know with Marpipe.
MarPipe is the new multivariant testing platform for Facebook ad creative that lets you do creative testing better.
The average MarPipe customer reports that their ad performance doubles in less than 30 days.
This is not some shady offer you find in your spam folder.
Marpipe is an Adobe-backed ad tech platform that is remaking the digital creative industry.
It's deceptively simple.
Just upload your assets, and MarPipe will create hundreds of ad variants and seamlessly launch them with one click.
MarPipe works with companies that are spending tens of thousands on Facebook to brand as large as Mars, Tubi, and Quip.
And Business Insider calls MarPipe the money ball of ad creative.
If you're spending over $25,000 a month on Facebook advertising, you need Marpipe today.
Book a free demo at marpipe.com slash P-O-T-P right now and get a free $2,000 credit.
But don't wait.
This offer is only for a limited time.
Once again, sign up for your free demo and get a free $2,000 credit at marpipe.com/slash P-O-T-P.
That's M-A-R-P-I-P-E dot com slash P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
We're going to talk about Hunter Biden's cock, Hunter Biden's cock, yeah, switching gears.
What do you think about this?
So, evidently, the folks over at 4chan, at least this is from what I'm reading.
They hacked into Hunter Biden's like iCloud or his phone or something and got a ton of texts and photos and videos from Hunter Biden.
I don't know how they did this.
I don't know how Hunter Biden is so unsecure with all of his things.
But it seems like they got into his cloud there and they got a whole bunch of his stuff.
What have you seen of this?
You might be a little bit more up on it than I am.
What have you seen?
That's kind of I've seen some of the video clips and stuff.
I got a lot of thoughts, but first and foremost, to come to his defense, if you're doing it, not even, not even just ironically, I kind of do feel, I feel bad for Hunter Biden in this situation.
I think if your president becomes the United President of the most powerful nation, there should be a budget for his kids to do cocaine and hookers.
I feel like that's part of what you achieved.
And maybe if we just threw that into the tax pile, he wouldn't have to run around colluding with China and other people for these kinds of resources.
That's the privilege of being one of the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world is cocaine and hookers.
Why would we deny that?
I mean, the budget is like $6 trillion.
Yeah, just throw it in and then he does not look at it.
Yeah.
Well, I think there could be another wing in the White House, the kid, the shitty kids hooker and prostitute wink.
Well, look, Hunter Biden.
So from what I've seen, right?
And I've seen some of the more wild accusations, but I have not like Peter Pan thing is the craziest.
Okay, and explain that.
All right.
Well, to say what's wild here is that there obviously was a leak and it does not exist in media.
There's zero coverage of this whatsoever, including I actually did a Google search for it and the Google search came back with like you have to wait a couple days for results.
Like I can send you the link to what it was like, but I've never seen a notation on Google before being like, hey, we don't like don't trust the search results on this topic.
So, there obviously is rampant censorship of this topic.
And so, that is inappropriate of the media because, at a minimum, it's news.
It did happen.
And this is a very interesting topic: whether or not Hunter Biden is engaging, not just in the illegal activities of cocaine hookers and blow and that type of shit, but whether or not he's getting money from other people, like China and other countries.
And, you know, anyways, the most scandalous part is that he was referring to his dad as pedophile Pete.
In addition to there was a text message of him like sending a picture.
It's like he was getting like sending a high-five picture to his dad of him banging a hooker, which does seem to showcase that this is a behind closed doors.
This is a very strange family.
Yeah, you go, and you just see that behind closed doors, they are very much not like they present themselves publicly, which is, you know, worth worth knowing when it's somebody who's you've, you know, who's been elected to, you know, be like the leader of the country.
Um, I do, I genuinely do, and I don't mean this at all sarcastically.
I genuinely do like feel bad for Hunter Biden.
I don't like, um, in general, I really am a big believer in privacy.
And I don't like when I hate whenever there's like a, you know, you know, just like that feeling when you have information about someone's personal life that you're not really supposed to have.
Like, I don't like that.
It reminds me of like the Louis C.K. stuff, like when you're almost like, you're like, okay, so did he commit a crime?
Like, no, he didn't commit a crime.
Then I shouldn't know this.
I shouldn't know what his weird thing is.
Like, I don't, you know, okay, yeah, it's weird, but it's none of my business.
It's just like, I feel this way in general.
I feel bad for somebody having like, look, obviously, this dude's a fucked up dude.
He's, he's lived a fucked up life.
I don't know the extent of like how fucked up the things he's done are.
I've heard rumors about really, really fucked up, in which case I don't feel bad for any of that being exposed.
If we're talking about criminal stuff, then expose it.
If we're talking about he's, you know, and I understand what I should, what I believe should be criminal.
If we're talking about drugs and hookers and stuff like that, I don't care.
I don't want to know.
But there are, so in a way, Hunter Biden really isn't.
Unfortunately for him, this is a really important story.
None of it has to do with Hunter Biden.
It's not about him.
It's about like all of the things around him.
And I will say, number one, what I think is, and this isn't as important to the current political moment, but the thing that like jumps out at me, it's just so crazy is that, you know, you see like what the videos of him with all his crack rocks on the scale and like all this shit and him smoking crack and like all like Joe Biden is a career-long drug warrior who fought.
It's not like he just went along with it.
He was like a champion.
He literally, he was like, he was challenging Ronald Reagan back in the 80s for being too soft on drug crimes.
Him and Strom Thurman partnered up.
He partnered up with this segregationist to be like, you got to be locking these people up more.
And then he bragged about it.
You can go watch these old speeches of Joe Biden where he's bragging about how they were, yeah, we were going to throw the, you know, he said we gave, we were throwing the death penalty at everything short of jaywalking.
Like he's bragging about how they'd be putting people in prison for like they, that amount of crack that Hunter Biden has in those videos that Joe Biden would give someone 40 years without thinking about it for that much.
Supporting Family Farms00:02:06
It's like there really is something to go, oh, you'd ruin these other kids' lives, but your kid gets to just brag about this shit and fucking even send you videos of it and all this stuff.
It's really, there's something like profoundly disgusting about that.
It's like, oh, yeah, this is, we'll ruin your kid for the same thing my kid's doing, but my kid gets a pass because he's a politician's kid.
So that really is like that, you know, I'm not judging Hunter Biden.
I mean, I judge him on some level, but I'm not like that aside, it's just really fucked up that his, you know, like he's the son of the champion of the war on drugs.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Moink.
Moink delivers grass-fed and grashed-finished beef, lamb, pasteurized pork, chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door.
Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did.
And as a result, moink meat tastes like it should because the family farm does it better.
The moink difference is a difference you can taste, and you can feel good knowing that you're helping family farms stay financially independent.
You choose the meat in every box: rib eyes, chicken breasts, pork chops, salmon fillets, and much more.
Plus, you can cancel anytime.
I've tasted some of this stuff.
It's really delicious.
Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted.
And ring doorbell founder Jamie Simonoff jumped at the chance to invest in Moink.
Go check this out.
You're going to love it.
If you're a meat lover, you're going to, this is a no-brainer for you.
It's going to be the most delicious meat you've ever had, shipped right to your door.
And you get to keep American farmers going strong by signing up at moinkbox.com/slash P-O-T-P.
Listeners of this show will get a free filet mignon in every order for a year.
That's one year of the best filet mignon you'll ever taste, but only for a limited time.
Go to moinkbox.com/slash p-otp.
That's m-o-i-n-kbox.com/slash p-otp.
All right, let's get back on the show.
The Ukraine Scandal00:07:27
Aside from that, and probably the more big, the bigger deal is just that this Hunter Biden thing, man, it, it, the, The cover-up that you already see happening in just the first like day and a half of this being news is really it.
It's very reminiscent of what happened with the first leak of his uh, of his laptop, and this was one of the biggest political scandals of my lifetime.
And not the story itself like the story itself was a scandal, but I don't know you could argue how big of a scandal it was um, there were aspects of it that were a very big deal, particularly in light of what's going on in Ukraine and Russia right now.
You know like it's pretty.
It really says something about the Ukrainian government that when they wanted to bribe a political official, they didn't go to a kid of of the, the Ukrainian government.
They went right to the vice president of the United States government.
And why is that?
It's because, well, Joe Biden was basically the government of Ukraine.
He was the point man on Ukraine while there was the U.S.-backed coup back in 2014 and the new government coming in in 2014, 2015.
And so that is a big story.
Like that, you know what I mean?
Like that part of it.
But the reason why this was such a huge story and one of the biggest of my life was the fact that it came out a few weeks before the 2020 election.
And the response to it was, and this is really fascinating, right?
As we all remember, the response to the story was to have the entire CIA claim that we knew for a fact this was Russian disinformation, even though obviously they were fucking lying.
And then to have censored.
Yes.
And then to have the big tech companies jump in with the CIA and the entire corporate press.
It was like in tandem, the CIA, the corporate press, and the tech companies all decided we were going to, we were all going to squash this story to protect Joe Biden.
And or, you know, another way of looking at that is to get Donald Trump to make sure that he can't, you know, win off of this.
And that is pretty goddamn interesting.
And, you know, to see that like now, whatever it is, what is it, a year and a half later, now the New York Times and the Washington Post, they all acknowledge that the laptop was real.
But like, dude, I don't know what to tell you.
Like, as I catch myself saying fairly often on this show, I'm no expert and you're no expert.
And we knew it was real that week.
Go back and listen to the episodes.
And we could tell you exactly why it was real and exactly why it made no sense that this was, there's very easy ways to verify like whether these things are real or not.
And it was all, it was obvious.
It was obvious from the time that this was completely real.
So, no, I don't even give the New York Times any credit for a year and a half later acknowledging that this was real.
We all knew it was real at the time.
And every one of those CIA people who, what did they say?
Joe Biden said, I think he said there were 40 intelligence operatives, and including five current and former heads of the CIA who said this had all the fingerprints, all the earmarkings of Russian propaganda.
Every one of them was lying.
It's not like they got it wrong.
Nobody is that.
Listen, as somebody who was telling you that week that this was unquestionably real, no one who actually is an intelligence official didn't know that.
No one there thought, oh, maybe this is a Russian propaganda campaign to undermine our election.
No, nobody thought that.
They just lied about it.
And that kind of raises questions like, why?
Why were they so quick?
Now, obviously, it was a couple of weeks before the election.
They didn't want there to be a scandal that would hurt Biden and help Trump.
But it's also quite possible that there's a bit more to it than that.
Is it just as simple as they're protecting the fact that like the president has a crackhead kid?
The president has a kid who was fucking hookers and smoking crack and all of this.
We all kind of know that already.
That's not really the scandal.
Is the scandal really just that this crackhead clearly was getting money from people that he like he himself did not command the value of $50,000 a month from Burisma and whatever he was getting like 75 grand a month from some Chinese companies like okay Even that in itself just doesn't quite seem like a big enough scandal to warrant the response that it got, if that makes sense.
So, you're kind of like, what are you really covering up here?
Because you know what really would warrant the response that it got would be the fact, would be the stuff that is a little bit like to the next level.
Like, Biden was really in on it.
Now, you've got yourself a fucking real scandal, or that Hunter Biden's nickname for his father means something.
Now, you've got yourself like a real scandal where you would understand why the response was like, This absolutely must be shut down.
Now, I don't know.
I know that there are people who I don't have tremendous trust in, who have made some allegations.
I know Rudy Giuliani, who had the laptop, made some allegations about what was on the, you know, on the laptop.
Who knows?
But it's interesting to look at the response to this and think about what might warrant that.
Any thoughts on that, Robbie?
Yeah, I think that to me is the annoying part of this story at this point is that they keep teasing that it's a it's a bombshell, either in showcasing pedophilia of maybe just Hunter or the Biden family in general, or clear tracings of criminal activity in terms of Chinese or other companies making payments to the Biden family that would border or possibly just be treason.
Uh, now, the annoying part about the pedophilia thing is then it like usually you want to research and then go verify these things, but if you're telling me that might be there, then I have no interest in going to look whatsoever.
So, that's almost like, why can't someone just step in and verify yes or no?
So, I find that the annoying part about this storyline is, as you already said, it clearly showcases that we got a broken and corrupt system that Joe Biden has been pushing jail sentences for something that his kid is clearly engaging in.
And there's a morality that exists there and a disgust that everyone should have.
The next level, though, is claim, like if you're just going to keep showing me footage of this guy partying, great.
So, he's a rich guy and he's partying.
That, like, I, that's not, I don't need to see that.
That's his private life.
But if there's something more interesting, then, like, can we just get the evidence at this point?
Like, even the claim of, hey, this is weird that he's referring to his dad as pedophile Pete.
Yes, it's weird, but like, I'm still taking the word of 4chan that that's actually Hunter Biden.
I mean, Joe Biden's real number.
Seeking Firm Evidence00:01:21
And, like, you know what I mean?
There's just too much like loose information that at this point, it's like, I'd like for a firm claim and whether or not it's just verified yes or no.
This is more just keep teasing something scandalous.
Yeah.
No, agreed.
I mean, the thing that we have the most firm is what I was saying before, that we know for a fact that the CIA and the tech companies and the corporate press all rallied together to kill this story and to lie about it, to claim that it was misinformation, that it was Russian disinformation or whatever.
So, that in itself is a very big deal.
All this other stuff, we'll see where it goes.
I agree with everything you just said there.
All right, listen, we're going to wrap up there.
Come catch me at Freedom Fest this week and then next month at Revolution 22 and go catch Rob on the run-your-mouth tour.
Where can they go to get tickets?
Click the link in the episode description.
It's all in the eventbrite.
Also, for all the people out there in Atlanta, I ran the end of your misinformation spectacular last time I was there.
So, there won't be one repeated joke.
This time I'm doing pure stand-up.
BK Chris is with me.
He's funny as all hell.
And then the live podcast that we're doing in Atlanta in Nashville, in addition to the stand-up show, is going to be a wild night.