Activist ADMITS FAULT In MN ICE SHOOTING, CBP SHOOTS Suspects Trying To RUN THEM OVER | Timcast IRL
Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 for your first three months using code TIM at http://joincrowdhealth.com - CrowdHealth is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win.
Go http://kalshi.com/timcast and get a free $10 credit when you trade $100!
BUY BOONIES BOARDS - https://shop.boonieshq.com/collections/initial-pro-models
SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/
Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/joinShow more Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Phil @PhilThatRemains (X)
Producer:
Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere)
Guest:
Podcast available on all podcast platforms!
Activist ADMITS FAULT In MN ICE SHOOTING, CBP SHOOTS Suspects Trying To RUN THEM OVER | Timcast IRL Show less
CBP has shot, reportedly shot two individuals according to what appears to be a leaked 911 dispatch screen.
These individuals fled the scene, called for help after being shot to man and a woman.
And according to CBP, in this leaked dispatch, these individuals attempted to run over these CBP agents.
This all took place in Portland.
Now, currently across the country, there are protests and some riots breaking out over the ice sheet and took place in Minnesota.
But we have way more information, tons of new developments and arguments coming from the left.
And the most, the sweetest, New York Times creating a video analysis where they speed up the incident and claim the officer was not in front of the vehicle and that he stepped in front of it.
This is what we are dealing with.
On the front page of Reddit on the New York Times, they are intentionally manipulating the information to frame this as though a DHS agent for no reason murdered a random woman.
But we have another big story.
Video emerged shortly after the shooting of the, let's just call her the perpetrator.
I mean, this woman who was trying to flee law enforcement from after committing a crime, her wife said, it's my fault I made her come down here.
Now, this is interesting.
This woman blurting out that she told this woman to come down to confront ICE.
And the reason it's interesting is that the woman who died, her family said she would never do anything like this.
So it's beginning to look like this woman likely panicked when the police came to arrest her because she had no idea what she was actually doing and was made to come down by an activist spouse.
Now, I don't know for sure, but we'll go over this story.
And we'll start, of course, with this shocking incident that took place in Portland.
Two people shot.
And of course, the expectation now is there's going to be an escalation of riots.
Some people saying George Floyd 2.0.
We're going to know all of that, my friends.
But before we do, we've got a great sponsor for you.
It is joincrowdhealth.com.
Use promo code Tim, my friends.
CrowdHealth, it's open enrollment.
The season where health insurance companies hope you'll blindly sign up again for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print.
Don't just take someone else's word.
Trust yourself and take control of your future with CrowdHealth, the healthcare alternative for people who make their own decisions.
Healthcare for under $100.
You'll get access to a team of health bill negotiators, low-cost prescription and lab testing tools, as well as a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by CrowdHealth.
And what if something major happens?
You pay the first 500 bucks and the crowd steps in to help fund the rest.
It feels like the options we used to have before Obamacare messed everything up.
And of course, you'll join the crowd, a group of members just like you who want to help pay for each other's unexpected medical events.
The system is betting you'll stay stuck in the same overpriced, overcomplicated mess.
And this year, it's even more complicated because most of the ACA subsidies expire, which means your prices are going sky high.
So far, CrowdHealth members have saved over $40 million in healthcare expenses because they refuse to overpay for healthcare.
This open enrollment, take your power back, join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 for your first three months using code TIM at joincrowdhealth.com.
CrowdHealth is not insurance.
Opt out.
Take your power back.
It's how we win at joincrowdhealth.com.
Code Tim.
And my friends, go to boonieshq.com and pick up our new blueprint collection while you still can.
The 50-caliber anti-material blueprint board is sold out.
We've got only, I think, a couple of the hand grenade boards left.
I believe we have just about a third of our assault wine bottle boards left, about 20 or so of the Battle Axe Jason Else boards, and around maybe 10 or 15 of the Colt 45 Cody Mac boards.
And of course, don't forget the new and improved Step on Snack and Find Out Western board.
Now, each of these boards have limited edition serialized versions that are gold.
Step on SNEC 2.0 has 10.
This means when you buy one of these boards, 10 people from Step on Snack are going to get a golden version.
And for every other board, you may get a black and gold version of each board limited edition.
Check it out at boonieshq.com while you can.
They're probably going to sell out probably by early next week, maybe actually before the weekend, maybe tomorrow, actually, to be completely honest.
Don't forget to smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
We're going to break down some hard truths for you, my friend.
We're going to debunk the New York Times, the lies from these progressives.
But I got to tell you, it's an unstoppable force and an immovable object.
The left propaganda machine is in full swing to lie about what happened.
So we're going to break that down.
And joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we have Josie the Red-Headed Libertarian.
They say two people were shot by federal agents in Southeast Portland on Thursday afternoon, according to police.
At 2.18 p.m. Portland, police officers responded to the 102nd or 1020 block of Southeast Main Street on a report of a shooting.
Officers confirmed that federal agents had been involved in a shooting, PPB said.
The FBI office in Portland confirmed the two agents involved in the shooting were working for Border Patrol on Axe and Twitter.
But a short time later, they deleted that statement.
There's no word in the condition of the people who were shot.
Quote, we are still in the early stages of this incident, said Chief Bob Day.
We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.
PPB officers have secured both scenes pending an investigation.
East Burnside Street is closed.
Blah, blah, blah.
This remains an active and ongoing investigation.
Now, we have this post from Andy No.
He says, two people have just been shot by Border Patrol during an immigration operation in Portland, Oregon.
Anti-ICE accounts have circulated screenshots alleging that a 911 dispatcher leaked to them information about a call for police assistance.
Now, it does appear that we have a 911 dispatcher screen leak, which reads, 33-year-old male conscious breathing problem.
Spanish speaker said he ran from ICE and was shot twice.
Wife was shot once as well.
Just pulled over here.
Info slow.
It's followed up by saying, my caller is Border Patrol, said they shot at a subject that almost ran them over.
Unknown if it hit other subject since they drove off in a red Toyota Tacoma.
So it appears that we've got two conflicting stories.
And I got to be honest, I don't believe that CBP just started randomly shooting or that they shot at people fleeing.
It looks like the 911 dispatch report also says they almost ran them over, which based on what we saw yesterday lines up.
Now, the scariest thing about everything we're seeing with the breaking news, the dramatic escalation we are seeing right now, holy crap.
And of course, more importantly, that there is no truth.
We can all watch the same video, but it does not matter.
There are people that are trying to be reasonable about what this is.
And of course, it's the right.
Every single time, if you approach these shootings and say, we don't know for sure, it looks like this maybe Border Patrol was aggressed upon and opened fire.
That seems to be the simple solution.
It won't matter.
You're right wing for saying it.
In Minneapolis, if you say the ICE agent probably should not have shot this woman, however, she does accelerate with the tires aimed at her, you're a conservative.
There is a large group of people, a large political faction that will just say whatever they can to justify why you are a Nazi, why you should be killed.
And now in, I believe it's New York, right?
They are chanting for Christy Noam to be hanged.
They want her executed.
The escalation is insane.
Minnesota has just activated the National Guard to come out and assist police.
Well, do you remember like last year when that plane crash happened, the Black Hawk hitting the plane at the beginning of the year?
And then for like two weeks after, you would see story after story of like any minor issue occurring with a plane on the runway.
And it was like for two weeks, everyone was freaked out to fly because, again, the news media was just reporting on every single incident involving a commercial airline.
This is kind of the same thing happening because last year, I believe there was about 14 to 15 ICE involved shootings in the United States.
I think four were killed, five injured in that ballpark.
And so, this is just kind of an indication of we're in a really hot moment.
It really does feel like the country is sort of dowsed and gaslighting in many ways.
Obviously, there's going to be extra scrutiny on ICE over these next two weeks.
And I think that's what people should be a bit prudent: it's not particularly unusual for there to be an ICE-involved shooting.
Again, there were 14 last year, as far as we know.
I think it was reported by the Independent that covered that.
It's just this occurring so close to what just happened in Minnesota.
Obviously, people on the left are going to seize on this.
Obviously, they're going to say this is like they're just mowing people down in the streets or whatever.
They said at 2:19 Pacific time, so this is 5 p.m. Eastern, U.S. Border Patrol agents were conducting a targeted vehicle stop in Portland, Oregon, the passenger of the vehicle, and the target is a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the Transnational Trende Aragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland.
The vehicle driver is believed to be a member of the vicious Venezuelan gang, Trende Aragua.
When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents.
Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot.
The driver drove off with the passenger fleeing the scene.
The situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming.
The mayor has issued a statement saying, This is Portland Mayor Keith Wilson.
Just one day after the horrific violence in Minnesota at the hands of federal agents, our community here in Portland is now grappling with another deeply troubling incident.
Earlier this afternoon, two people were shot and injured by federal agents in the Hazelwood neighborhood.
We cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts.
Portland is not a training ground for militarized agents, and the full force threatened by the administration has deadly consequences.
As mayor, I call on ICE to end all operations in Portland until a full investigation can be completed.
Federal militarization undermines effective community-based public safety, and it runs counter to the values that define our region.
I will use every legal and legislative tool available to protect our residents, civil and human rights.
I'm just going to say it, guys, civil war.
I don't care.
It's not funny anymore.
There's a lot of jokes about it.
But understand what they are saying.
They are dispatching National Guard against the feds.
They are saying federal law enforcement duly sworn in and voted for, this operation voted for by the American people must be stopped.
And they're talking about using whatever means they have to stop the federal government from enforcing their laws.
They say they want community policing, but that includes allowing illegal immigrant gang members and transnational gangs.
It allows them to operate in these jurisdictions.
This is the United States of America.
This is not a fragmented batch of sovereign states that are at odds with each other.
But apparently, that's what is being driven in these blue states.
The statement that's made here is devoid of fact.
The Portland mayor's statement is devoid of fact.
The DHS statement asserts some things to be fact.
Now, we don't know that they're true, but all I can say is based on the experiences I have and you all have going back the past 10 years, it seems to be that the quote-unquote right is trying to rationally assess the situation, and the left is just saying we will do whatever we want.
And I use these statements as an example.
The Portland mayor, again, not issuing facts other than a shooting happened, but then goes on to call for ICE to be removed, saying we're going to resist the federal government.
DHS said, here's what happened at our operation.
A guy tried to run us over.
He was shot at.
That is a fact assessment.
Now, again, maybe DHS is lying.
That's fine.
But you take a look at George Floyd, what happened?
Every conservative comes out and says, we think this is wrong because we are rational people.
And every leftist said, arrest the cops.
They're evil.
When more information came out, conservatives said, actually, we were wrong about that.
Derek Chauvin likely was, you know, it's tragic George Floyd died, but this is not a murder.
It doesn't warrant prison.
What we are looking at is continually, the right tries to be rational and the left calls for blood.
Charlie Kirk was murdered and they are dancing and celebrating.
This woman obstructs police, accelerates towards the officer before turning right.
The cop opens fire.
I wouldn't call it the cleanest of shots.
I don't think he needed to shoot her, but I think it played out the way it did because this officer, it's now being reported, had been dragged six months previously by another vehicle and likely is on edge, especially considering the terror attacks.
I think that's a reasonable assessment.
It doesn't matter.
The New York Times is putting out fabricated information to lie.
Activists are putting out fabricated information to manipulate and gain political power from this.
The whole left, excuse me, left narrative is agitrop.
The point is to create tension, to continue to up the antique, to continue to push the narrative that ICE is actually the Gestapo, that Trump is a Nazi.
You hear it at these protests.
The protesters are screaming at ICE constantly the same thing.
Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.
Nick Sortor had a video.
He was walking around last night.
The guy behind him, you're a Nazi.
You're a Nazi.
There was a video that was outside of one of the DHS facilities.
You guys are all Nazis.
You guys are all Nazis.
This line has been the same from them for the better part of 10 years, and it's to justify anything they want to do.
The point is to justify violence.
The point is to justify whatever behavior they want.
There is no reason to think that they're actually reasonable and actually looking for any kind of debate or anything.
I talked about this last night.
The whole point is to do what they can to destabilize the United States because they believe the United States is an illegitimate country.
They believe the whole, oh, you're standing on stolen land.
They believe the whole capitalism is actually theft.
Property is theft.
They believe all of it.
And the goal is to destabilize the United States as much as they can.
Yeah, I mean, Keith Wilson, the mayor of Portland, that statement he's probably had in the chamber now ever since the beginning of the Trump administration.
I mean, there's no question about it.
Just have to swap out the city and then the date.
But he's been like, these guys are high-fiving whenever they see an ICE-involved shooting.
They're relieved.
They're so excited.
They can finally have the justification to now try and apply pressure on the widely popular mass deportation platform.
And when I have some people on the morning show and there's an isolated story, I always like to ask them this question because I think it's a really salient question.
And the answer is very helpful for people to understand in regards to why does the left, out of all the issues, the animating issue for them, the one issue that's guaranteed to get them out in the streets is immigration enforcement.
And you have to ask yourself, what is at stake?
Why are we conducting mass deportations?
What about the immigration system being broken for so long specifically infuriates Americans?
Well, it's the fact that actual Americans feel dispossessed by immigration, legal and illegal.
And the left wing wants to really replace Americans.
They want to bring people in because they hate themselves.
So by extension, they hate their people, Americans, right?
And so that's really what's animating a lot of this anti-ICE fury is just self-hatred.
And the fact that a paternal figure, like in this case, ICE is coming in and saying, actually, no, you need to sort of have love for your country and these sorts of things, that infuriates.
How much do you think the argument that the Democrats are being funded by the people that are coming in?
So you basically, it's a quid pro quo.
You get into the United States, we'll provide you with benefits, we'll help you to cheat the system and get some kind of, whether it be the millions of dollars in Minneapolis, which seems like it's actually happening in cities all over the country.
And then they're getting, Democrats are getting donations from these people, large sums, as well as NGOs.
How much do you think it's actually just like, you know, one hand washing the other?
It's an economic, or it's a triple threat, really.
So you have the economic implication, you have the political implication, and then you have the sort of philosophical or national implication.
So the economic implication is obvious.
We've been talking about it for years, is well, it undercuts labor.
So there's business interests involved, and most of these business interests are left aligned because they just tend to play ball more often.
And then you obviously have the political ramifications, which is obvious.
I mean, Elon Musk points this out all the time: you can just like run up the numbers in California if you can just pack as many people and wait for them to have kids, and then that boosts the Democrat voting numbers.
Because, again, the children of foreign-born people is pretty identical to their parents.
So they also vote like 70, 30, 80, 20 Democrat, depending on the state.
And then the third one is sort of this philosophical, national sort of understanding.
That's what I was talking about earlier, is where they just have a really terrible perception of themselves and they hate themselves.
And so by extension, they're going to hate every aspect of themselves.
And the primary aspect of a human being is, who are you?
I think that I was watching it, I saw a tweet, and I didn't retweet it today, but there was a Somalian in, I believe it was in Maine, and he was saying, Look, if you don't support us, if you don't protect us, and essentially saying, if you don't help us gain the system, we're not going to vote for you.
Our whole community is not going to vote for you.
And so I'm starting to think that I understand the points that you're making, and I don't really have any kind of argument against them.
But I'm starting to think that it's a little more about trying to scrape off the top for the Democrats.
Really, like they'll bring in, you know, illegal immigrants or legal immigrants, just so long as those immigrants vote for them and donate to their campaigns.
Renee Good's wife claimed Minneapolis shooting was, quote, my fault in video amid anti-ice fury.
This is an interesting development in the story, and it paints a picture of what happened.
The quick gist, of course, is that following this shooting, the individual who died, Renee Goode's wife, is seen crying, saying, I made her come down here.
It's my fault.
Let me see if I can find the here is, I made her come down here.
It's my fault.
Additionally, in the report, they state that Renee Good's family said she would never have been part of anything like that and described her as compassionate and non-confrontational.
It sounds like this woman who was in her car, the reason why she attempted to flee was panic.
She did accelerate towards the officer.
The officer had been dragged before, likely feared for his life, opened fire on this woman.
It seems like this woman in this vehicle was brought down and radicalized by this woman that she had been in a relationship with.
My understanding is it's not actually her wife.
They're reporting it as a de facto wife, meaning this reporting, it appears they're actually just in a relationship.
Well, yeah, social marriage, not a legit legal marriage.
In which case, it seems like this woman was in a relationship with this other woman, radicalized her, told her to come down and do this when she's obstructing the road.
These people are LARPing and they don't understand the consequences.
They think they're playing a game.
And so this doofy, dumb woman commits a felony, commits obstruction, radicalized by this woman, who then breaks down and says, it's my fault.
Now, the question is, people are going to push back and say, no, no, no, she's saying it's my fault.
Like, I wanted her to come with me.
Not that it's my fault all of this happened, but no, quite literally, the woman is sitting there crying because she's dead, saying it's my fault I made her come down here.
The point is, this woman blurted out that she told this woman to come down to commit a felony.
And in the process of committing the felony, the woman was killed.
And guess what?
She likely has some culpability here.
Now, the issue that we're seeing, there was an article in the New York Post discussing whether or not this ICE agent is going to face charges.
And they said, likely no, because it was a clean shoot, albeit regrettable.
And that has to be the stupidest assessment I've ever heard in my life.
This dude could take a dump on a ham sandwich that was owned by a Democrat and they're going to lock him up.
Okay, let alone shoot a leftist protester.
It doesn't matter what the law says, okay?
If a leftist protester punches you in the face 50 times, so you shove them, they will arrest you for shoving the leftist protester.
So this guy's going to get charged.
Now, apparently he fled the scene, but in any legitimate legal sense, this wife, I believe, has criminal culpability in encouraging an individual to commit a felony, resulting in her death.
I'm not saying that this woman's never been an activist in her life.
And one day this woman said, come down and do this thing with me.
I'm saying that you've got a broad scenario where the family doesn't understand why she would do something like this because over a period of time, recent, maybe it's six months, maybe it's a year, she was being radicalized by this woman who then told her to come down and engage in felony activity against law enforcement.
I think a 37-year-old white woman watched memes online from A-list or celebrities and did not realize placing a vehicle in front of a federal law enforcement officer puts a bullet in your face.
Like I said, these Antifa people understand they will be shot.
This lady had no idea what she was doing.
Otherwise, she would not have accelerated into an authority.
I think that she's probably not familiar with protests and stuff like that.
But at the same time, I don't think that she was ignorant of the situation because, like I said, if she is a lawyer, you think that these middle-aged women are aware that they're going to get shot and killed?
I think that, honestly, I think that a lot of middle-aged women think they're above the law totally.
My point is it seems more likely that she is an ignorant woman radicalized by memes and a significant other who didn't understand the severity of the action she was getting involved in.
Her family didn't think she would do something like this, committing a felony and then trying to flee.
This is a woman radicalized by A-list celebrities and memes, and a woman said, come down and do this.
It is a snowflake in the avalanche.
There have been no consequences for these leftists.
So a middle-aged white woman who has no idea how severe this is, engaging federal law enforcement, thought she was going to accelerate and flee the scene after committing a felony.
Now, that is beyond ignorant, okay?
I watch these videos on Instagram where you see a dude and a motorcycle going 100 miles an hour down the highway fleeing cops.
This woman doesn't understand what she's getting involved in.
Antifa activists who organize this literally do and plan for this.
And it is my opinion, her death was a contingency these activists hoped for and planned for.
What we know about how Antifa organizes in the far left is that they code people, they bring to these events by color, red, yellow, and green.
Green marked individuals are like her.
Well, she might be actually, no, she might be green-coated.
The idea of the green, these are people who form the mass.
You want them to get arrested intentionally.
You trick them into getting arrested.
Why?
It radicalizes them.
The yellow are the activists who are in the front leading the charge, and the red are the direct action people who hide in the crowd and instigate the fights to cause the violence.
The way these plans work is you invite a bunch of doofy college kids to a protest and say it's a peaceful march.
The plan they actually have, and I've seen these planning meetings during Occupy Wall Street and the various activities over the past 10 years.
The direct action groups have a secret secondary meeting, a direct action planning, where they literally say, how do we maximize police brutality and arrests of the green category?
If we can get 100 college kids who have no idea what's going on to show up and march, punch a cop, how many of them will get beaten and arrested?
They intentionally want you to show up to get arrested.
Why?
Because then when you go to jail, they say, why are the cops doing this to you, you poor innocent victim?
This woman is on the front lines, clearly having no idea what's going on, nor understanding the felonies she is committing.
And then she tries to flee.
And in doing so, put an officer in fear for his life and he killed her.
And I have been, one of my favorite stories that I've told quite a bit is during an Occupy Wall Street protest where they were chanting, ah, anti anti capitalista.
That's what they chant, right?
Well, there was one guy who was going, blah, nabi, agiba da bastida.
He was just saying gibberish.
I'm not even kidding.
It's not an exaggeration.
And I was live streaming.
So if you want to go find the youth stream, if it still exists, you can see it.
And I asked him, I was like, what are you chanting?
And he goes, oh, I'm just chanting with the crowd.
And I was like, yeah, but what were you saying?
And he was like, oh, I'm just, you know, chanting.
And I was like, no, no, no, what are the words?
He's like, I don't know.
He didn't even know he was chanting anti-capitalist.
These were college kids who came down to Occupy Wall Street, many of whom were tricked because the occupier said Radiohead was going to come play a concert.
Not a joke.
Literally happened.
2,000 people showed up being told Radiohead was playing a free concert at the park.
These weren't activists.
They were doofs who are like, cool, Radiohead.
Then the activists say, we have to go march.
People just say, okay, I guess they're walking down the street.
All of a sudden, they're getting whacked by cops.
What happens next?
They get arrested.
The NYPD pulls up the orange kettling net.
That's what they call it, the kettling net.
Surround them, wrap them up, put them on a bus, send them to holding.
Now you've got a 20-year-old young woman who was looking for a radiohead concert, who has no idea why she was arrested, and the cops are callous.
The cops are like, shut up, you're under arrest.
So they have no idea what's going on.
Then the activists come in to radicalize and they say, Aren't they evil?
You didn't even do anything.
You were just walking on the street and they attacked you.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think that you're wrong in any of that stuff.
Just in this context, like I said, if she's a lawyer, I think that she probably was at least aware of how things kind of went, especially that with that National Lawyers Guild.
And yeah, I think what you guys are both getting at is that even if she does have association with the lawyers guild and these sorts of things, these people ultimately still have this sort of cocktail activism style where they really think that they can do these things.
Yeah, but like cocktail activism where they there's a degree of edginess to it.
They do know they're being a bit abrasive, but they don't expect like serious consequences for these things.
They just expect maybe at the worst they'll get a mug shot.
So yeah, I think that's sort of really what's going on here.
So even if she is maybe in these sort of Intifa adjacent organizations, I think even those people still underrate the moment that we're in and that this is a new paradigm and that the Trump administration really is.
Trump himself is, I would probably assume, like paranoid of having another 2020 replay.
And all the actions he's made thus far indicate that he is really serious about putting a lid on this before it does escalate into Summer of Love 2.0.
They don't think they're doing anything other than expressing their First Amendment, despite the fact she was committing, I think, two different felonies.
Oh, and these people are also in a different world.
Like we have to keep in mind, like this isn't Dallas, this isn't Houston, this isn't Miami.
Like Minneapolis, these people literally remember five years ago when they were allowed to do whatever they wanted and there was literally no pushback whatsoever.
So these people are also just in a completely different world being in Minneapolis.
I want to show you guys, we got a breaking report from the New York Times.
They title it, Video Con videos contradict Trump administration account of ICE shooting in Minneapolis.
And surprise, surprise, what do they say?
In the video, they say the officer was not struck.
They say that he was clear of the vehicle.
Then he shot her.
It's a lie.
So I'm going to play the video from the New York Times and show you exactly what they said.
But the first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to show you a couple of things.
First, we have this video, which of course we showed yesterday, but I want to play as much as I can to make sure everybody understands what was actually going on.
I'm going to play this for you now, and then I'm going to do a quick analysis before we get into the bulk of the story.
All right, so the quick analysis first.
First, the officer who does the shooting is standing to the right front of the vehicle.
The SUV reverses with its wheels pointed leftward, making it curve to the right.
At the same time, the officer looks like he makes about a step to his right.
This aligns both of them in one direction.
It's not a question of why was the officer standing in front of the car.
The car turned and it put him in front of the vehicle.
Then, the most important part, while the wheels are aimed leftward, they spin out.
There you go.
We've showed it a million million times.
Here's the front tire spinning on ice before accelerating straight forward.
Briefly, this is an officer hearing an engine rev, not seeing the tires, and the car jerks forward a little bit.
He then draws the gun, and most importantly, the vehicle makes contact with him.
How do we know?
Quite simply, when you see the officer's feet, right, his leg right here, slide across the ground.
See his feet sliding?
Unless he jumped and slid his feet back, which is not what happened, the vehicle made contact with him, which you've already seen in other videos, and then he shoots.
Now, before I show you the New York Times video, I want to show you this video.
Viewer discretion is advised.
A female officer in Baltimore standing much in the same place as this ICE agent with her gun drawn.
unidentified
As the Jeep continued to advance, Officer Caprio got off one shot.
WJZ won't show the rest, but a somber jury saw and heard Amy Caprio dying from massive crushing injuries.
In this video, a video that's going viral, she's standing at about the same angle to the right of the front of the vehicle, gun drawn, and she dies in a second, getting crushed by the criminal.
Now that you understand that, here's what the New York Times is presenting.
And watch how they speed things up.
Warning, the video includes graphic information.
unidentified
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Coot.
Trump administration officials said these were, quote, defensive shots fired because the officer was being run over.
And a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over.
But our analysis of bystander footage filmed from different angles appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim's SUV when he fired three shots at close range.
The language the New York Times is using is carefully chosen and edited to manipulate you.
When they say run over, now the first thing I'll do is criticize the Trump administration and Trump himself, which I did yesterday, for saying he was run over, which is not correct.
And as predicted, it's being weaponized by the left to claim Trump's a liar.
But outside of that, I can explain how they are lying.
They combine two distinct statements that the individual was trying to run him over and that he wasn't in the path.
These, this is a non-sequitur.
The vehicle, as we've already shown, accelerated towards the officer with its wheels pointed slightly left, putting the officer in reasonable fear of being run over, for which DHS said she tried to run him over.
After he draws his weapon, the wheels then turn to the right.
So these are distinct.
Him not being in the path has nothing to do with whether or not she tried to run him over.
unidentified
Victim's SUV when he fired three shots at close range.
The officer in front can't see what the woman is doing.
And in a split second, as he draws his weapon, the wheels then begin to turn right.
I believe the woman saw the gun and jerked the wheel to the right.
unidentified
At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun because the vehicle looks somewhere towards him and continues shooting as she drives past.
The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV.
They wrote these things down and crafted this language intentionally to manipulate you.
I want to show you this context as well from the New York Post.
ICE agent who opened fire on Renee Goode was dragged and hospitalized by a legal migrant driver last year.
I don't know if we have the, we do.
Here's the image of the ICE agent.
I believe this is they're giving the guy's name.
ICE agent opened fire, was hospitalized.
And then this photo says, a photo shared by CBS Minnesota showed ICE agent Jonathan Ross laid in a hospital bed displaying his arms once covered in blood from deep gashes.
The presumption is, yeah.
So they released his name, I guess.
This guy had gotten 33 stitches and had dragged 330 feet previously when in a similar situation.
ICE has faced several terror attacks over the past year.
I don't believe this woman was intending to kill anybody.
I just believe she didn't care if she ran him in her escape.
She did strike him.
The New York Times, they are activists.
They are liars.
And I tell you how deep this runs.
The guy speaking didn't just write this, record it, and publish it.
It went through legal.
It went through their editorial department.
And I'm sure he's got a couple other people who worked on it.
In fact, I bet there's credits.
Here we go.
Let's see the credits.
How do you get rid of this stupid thing?
You can't.
There we go.
Devin Lum, Robin Stein, Inara Tieflenthaler, Inara Tieflental's editor, Courtney Brooks, and Mark Scheffler.
All of these people coordinated the exact message to trick the public into thinking I murdered a woman for no reason.
And the most egregious point, of course, is when he says, it does look like the officer was hit, but upon closer inspection, he wasn't run over.
Now people are going to hear that and think, whoa, he wasn't actually hit because they're manipulating you.
I mean, this has become boilerplate for the left, at least for the media.
That's kind of why people have largely turned away from the legacy media, at least, is because they know that the stories are not intended to inform you.
They're intended to tell you what you're supposed to think.
And it's, you know, basically it's, it's one narrative.
And if you go to CNN, you'll get the same kind of narrative.
If you go to maybe not ABC and CBS anymore, what Bearways is at CBS, right?
Yeah, what's important here, like with the New York Times, why the New York Times specifically them conducting themselves in such an egregious matter, because a lot of people in the audience are saying, well, who cares what the New York Times has to say?
Because who's even reading it anymore?
It's no longer the paper of record, so to speak.
Why this matters is because in Washington, D.C., this is like how Beltway politics works, is the majority of these Democrat staffers, maybe not the congresspeople themselves, but the people that are staffing them and like writing the policy, they read the New York Times.
They listen to the New York Times products.
So they are hearing this and this is what they are perceiving to be true.
So again, it's easy for us in the audience, especially people here on Rumble or whatnot in this kind of alt media space to just ignore them and say, why does it even matter what they say anymore?
Cause they're a dying business, which is which is true.
But there's a lot of people that are fairly influential that are not terribly smart that will literally get their programming from the New York Times.
And so that's why it actually is extremely relevant what information they're putting out because for still for a large group of not insignificant amounts of people, they are still the paper of record.
Yeah, every, I mean, I've come out of corporate America.
Like, there's always that one guy in the office who perceives himself to be the arbiter of like the latest news.
He prides himself off of being this wonk and this news junkie.
And he's typically a dorks, and that's why people actually kind of listen to him.
And he's the type of guy that's going to disseminate any information that he hears from the New York Times because he perceives it to be like a position of authority.
And with their snappy editing, it's very like kind of well packaged and these sorts of things.
It feels authoritative.
And especially for these people that are midwits, they're going to see that and go, wow, this must be true.
I mean, President Trump, he's so kitschy and dork.
You know, there's no way that he could possibly be on the money here.
We can just literally say Ashley Babbitt was on our side, so it's wrong.
Yes.
There's literally, we could say something rational like, Ashley Babbitt stepped up on the trim and looked through a window and got shot in the face, shot in the neck.
That's crazy.
This one was behind the wheel of a car and accelerated towards an officer.
They're very different.
Doesn't matter.
We're not convincing anybody.
The people on the right are already like, ICE is doing their job.
You got in the way.
And Ashley Babbitt was unarmed.
And the left is already saying, we don't care.
Ashley Babbitt was an insurrectionist and this woman's allowed to drive her car to ICE agents.
And to be honest with you, like you're a defense attorney.
If you were a prosecutor, you might have a different perspective.
You might be actually looking at, well, maybe how would you justify what the police did?
Because to be honest with you, with the police officer in front of the car and the car moving forward, doesn't matter where the wheels were turned, doesn't matter anything like that.
This manipulated language is designed to target people who are just like this woman who got hit.
She's a limousine liberal.
She's a middle-aged white woman and she's got this suicidal empathy.
And they also, I think, to some extent believe that there's been a chilling effect because of George Floyd for whether or not they could potentially get shot.
Like, no, no cop's going to want to do that.
You saw what happened to that.
And then they also believe that the celebrities are going to bail them out.
So why not?
But speaking as a mother who's around her age, who has three children, this was not rationally done.
When you're a parent, you put your children before anything else.
And the idea of going down to this, like, I believe she's been brainwashed, like Tim Ed said, I believe that this woman she was dating did brainwash her to become an activist.
There's no amount of anything that could make me risk my life and leave my children here.
That just wouldn't happen as a rational thinking person.
So I believe that there was some other aspect that was brainwashing her.
And whether it be the news, whether it be the woman that she was with, I don't know, but that's not something that a mother does.
And to set the scene for this whole thing, like what people are forgetting, how did all of this start in Minneapolis in the first place?
It was literally Nick Shirley walking around with the camera exposing the very obvious fraud going on in Minneapolis.
And then Kirsty Noam saying, yeah, we kind of need to send a message in Minneapolis.
We're going to deploy 3,000 DHS agents.
That's how all of this started.
So these people are quite literally willing to put their bodies on the line for people that absolutely hate them, that want to defraud them, take their country away from them.
And then on the flip side, they celebrate the death of a husband, a father, a patriot.
So it's like, we're post-debate.
There's no debate to be had.
This is a team sport at this point.
And I'm sorry to any of the audience that's like thinking we can debate our way out of this.
We can argue our way out of this.
Maybe we just need to like come up with a better idea in the marketplace of ideas.
You know what their idea that they're selling in the marketplace of ideas is?
I mean, I would hope that some of the more handful of based congresspeople in Congress are having some influence.
I mean, you look at the administration, right?
At least the Trump administration, the executive branch, most of the people in the executive branch are far closer to having their finger on the pulse than anything in Congress.
Well, for good reason, because they have to make it through a primary that people actually have eyeballs on, where these congressmen, they just slip through with like one opposition.
And there's like a few.
I mean, Mary Miller came out and she was like, invoke the Insurrection Act, arrest Tim Waltz.
Like a few of them are good on this issue, but the vast majority of them are like still hung up on you name it.
Tim Waltz approves National Guard support for Minnesota police as protests flare up.
Tim Waltz authorized the state National Guard to be prepared to support local law enforcement in Minnesota on Thursday, responding to protests that erupted after an immigration and customs enforcement agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis Wednesday.
Waltz office sent in a statement: the Minnesota National Guard will be staged and ready to support local and state law enforcement in protecting critical infrastructure and maintaining public safety, adding his office has every reason to believe that peace will hold.
It's funny because he's basically deploying the National Guard against the protesters he's pretending to support.
But the rumor is he activated the National Guard to try and preempt Trump from doing so.
Now, Trump still can, but the game he's trying to play is: no, no, we've got a plan already for them.
And if Trump comes in, he'll try and claim that Trump is trying to make them unsafe.
Now, here's where it gets funny.
Over at Kalshi, Tim Waltz out as governor.
You've got three choices before February.
Wow, 3%.
Before July, 21%.
Before 2027, 32%.
The reason why this matters, his term ends January of 2027.
And there are people wagering $1.3 million he is going to be removed from office one way or another before that happens.
So, I do find all of this interesting, considering he dropped out of the race after the Somali fraud scandal was exposed.
Now, with the shooting, now with the National Guard, I don't believe this guy lasts.
I think he's going to get nuked.
Before we kick off everything, I want to say, shout out to Kalshi for sponsoring the segment.
Well, it's tough for him to stay in office or make the case to the people of Minnesota that he should stay in office when he's already conceded that he is not viable as a governor going forward.
So, at that point, it's just obvious.
The question is, why are you still in office?
And again, if the reason why he's dropping out is that the fraud scandal is so detrimental to him that the internal polling has come in and it's like showing him completely underwater, then at a certain point, they might have to make the same calculation that the Biden-Kamala administration had to make, which is maybe if we replace you, then that can build up the profile of a potential challenger.
It's again, you can't just say, hey, I am not fit to be governor in 2027 and still claim to be fit for governor in 2026.
My idea is that they're going to find somebody who's more corrupt or just as corrupt as him, but just only slightly less retarded so that they don't screw up and get revealed like he does.
I think Klobuchar has she has still presidential ambitions or potentially maybe even vice president ambitions.
I can't imagine her leaving her Senate seat, but there seems to be some fairly high-profile people that are speculating that potentially she could jump into the race.
Yeah, I mean, look, I'm not, I'm not really all that, I don't have a strong feeling either way about what will happen should he leave, um, other than I want to see him face charges.
I think that he's, he's totally involved in the, uh, in the corruption.
I think that he's, he's been doing everything he can to cover for the people that are stealing money from the taxpayer.
And I want to see him arrested.
I want to see a trial.
And if it turns out that he is, then I want to see him in jail.
This is also one of those things that moves the revolution forward because what did he do?
He ran for vice president of the United States.
Now he's broken the law and the federal people are going to come after him, you know?
And so they're going to, the left could frame it like, look at them coming after their political opponents, you know, because nobody remembers that they went after Trump at this point now.
Now, now this has completely been reframed, but that's just another way to move the revolution forward.
I'd also like to add that Amy Klobuchar looks exactly like Madame Medusa from The Rescuers.
The point, the point, yeah, I agree with you totally.
But you look at people saying, oh, you got to arrest Trump.
You got to arrest Trump.
And it's like, fine, JD Vance to be the vice president.
Yeah.
So what?
It's like, I mean, I don't want to see Trump.
I don't particularly want to see Trump arrested.
But if he actually did something that was illegal and it was, you know, you had proof, I'd be fine with Donald Trump going to jail.
It would be JD Vance.
No problem.
I like JD Vance.
Cool.
Because the point is, I want to see good governance.
I want to see, you know, I want to see, you know, the actual, the people that have actually committed crimes, the people that are fleecing the system, the people that are stealing from the taxpayer.
I want to see those people face charges because I want to see less of that in the future.
And I do think that deportations tie into that because I do think that the, like I was saying earlier, the Somali community in Maine was saying, look, you know, you, you brought us here.
So basically, or I mean, we cut, we voted for you.
So you have to cover us when we break the law.
I mean, he came out and said it, right?
He was like, look, you know, you have to cover for us.
And if you don't cover for us, we're not going to vote for you.
Well, it's like that, that seems like not, not that I'm particularly versed on what Somali culture is like, but that seems like the way that it works in Somalia, right?
Like everybody's in on the take.
Everybody takes a bribe if they can.
You hear about that kind of stuff all over the third world where it's normal.
And if you bring that here and they expect that kind of behavior from Democrats and Democrats are complying, those people need to go to jail.
And the people that are saying, well, you should do this, they need to be deported because we don't do that here.
Like America's not a third world country and I'm not okay with it becoming a third world country.
So if there are people that are going to try to make it a third world country, send them back.
Tim Walsh is really trying to deflect from the Somali daycare scam and really come up as this leader and this grandfather or father type figure when it comes to this woman that just died.
So he gets up and he makes the speech and he's like, we'll bring in the National Guard.
And he's like, and there are a National Guard.
And, you know, Trump can do the funniest thing because he has significant unilateral power when it comes to the Insurrection Act of 1807.
He has the power to determine that conditions amounting to rebellion exist and then deploy federal troops and federalize that National Guard.
Yeah, well, and you're just going to continue to get people, like people are so frustrated with everyone sort of playing it fast and loose to the Constitution or making it fit into whatever they're trying to get done.
The reason for that is because we're kind of post-constitution in a lot of ways.
Like the culture that actually made up the country that sort of ratified the Constitution is gone.
So the only way we're actually going to restore anything and sort of bring the make the Constitution sort of an act of living relevant document is you need to like recreate those conditions that led to people buying into the Constitution in the first place.
Where right now, again, like I said, we're post-Constitution.
So it's like most people see the Constitution as an impediment to what they're trying to do.
When the Constitution was ratified, people were just like, yeah, that makes sense.
Like, I'm kind of surprised we need to write that down.
There's going to be civil unrest from this kind of stuff, sure.
But if we get the government that we should have, I think that it'll take a lot of arrests and a lot of putting people in jail, but you could actually stamp that kind of stuff out of it.
It says, left-wing agitators threaten the lives of our immigration officials.
We're going to effing find you.
We're going to effing kill you.
You're going to effing die, bitch.
Directly inspired by Democrat politicians, they say.
So arrests aren't going to get us out of this.
You can take a look at every revolution or civil war.
Arrests just agitate.
If you go around arresting a bunch of these leftists, they will use that and recruit with it.
So what I see with all of this going on is the hyper-polarization in this country is so extreme, you're not going to go in and arrest 80% of California.
And 80% of California is going to, maybe not 80, but 70% holds these views.
So if you go and arrest Antifa, the entirety of the people in California are like, you're wrong.
When it comes to our Constitution, John Adams to Patrick Henry, they all said that our Constitution would only work if we all shared a similar moral framework and they had related that to like a Christian moral framework.
But now we have people who take bribes and eat cats and eat dogs and want you dead for disagreeing with them.
That's not a shared moral framework.
Feels like the only way that we could all survive is with a national divorce, is to separate the country into two and say, okay, Republicans over here and liberals over here.
So like Virginia, Virginia initially voted two to one against joining the Confederacy.
And then after Abraham Lincoln dispatched troops, they voted two to one in favor of the Confederacy.
You still had a third of the state.
Maryland, for instance, Abraham Lincoln went and arrested them all.
And they were locked out, basically.
Delaware and Maryland were slave states, but they were north of D.C.
The point is, yes, look, if California decided to secede or something like that, the Republican, the conservatives in California aren't going to be like, oh, no.
They're going to be like, whatever you say, man.
Because California is going to be like, we'll take your homes from you.
We'll seize your assets.
They're going to be like, no, no, no, just whatever you say, man.
And the liberals in the red areas are going to be like, look, just whatever you say, man.
You will get partisan violence.
Pockets will pop up.
That happens everywhere all the time.
But largely, I don't think that's the biggest factor.
The bigger factor is going to be that Arizona is going to cease to exist, that Nevada will cease to exist.
Whoever controls the Colorado River is going to shut California down.
So Southern California, oh man, can you imagine what would happen if they just locked out the Colorado River and you got 13 to 20 million people in Southern SoCal who will no longer have drinking water?
Not to mention, like, the thing that frustrates me a little bit about the national divorce rhetoric, among other things, is like this has been the case for the last 70 years, the United States, is it's just the right making concessions.
It's never the left making concessions.
So the only situation in which a national divorce would ever actually occur would be their right, like walking away from the table.
And that's really frustrating.
Like, I do think we're past time where the right should be playing for keeps.
I think the right should be imposing their will on the left rather than the sort of the right always retreating at every point.
Indeed, because the hope is when Trump flicks the switch, the military and the National Guard in these states side with the federal government and shut down the Democrats.
But that would mean we come to a point where Democrats are like, that's it.
We are no longer adhering to the U.S. Constitution.
And then the U.S. military removes them from power to keep union cohesion.
If that happens, otherwise, what happens is Gavin Newsom comes out and says, I'm in command now and you will not listen to Trump.
And you can go to some enlisted or even an officer to a certain degree in California and say, I'm going to take your home from you.
Like, because this was before in the Biden years where people would make this argument and they'd be like, well, you know, the majority of guys in the military are conservative, which is true.
But as we can see with police unions, it's just, it's tougher when you threaten people's livelihoods.
You just end up shaking out a lot of those guys.
Like the military we saw during COVID, they passed the vaccine mandate and that shook out a lot of our best guys.
Yeah, so it's like, even if it's true now that the majority of the military is based, and that is true, at least the guys that make up the military are based, they will come up with mechanisms to shake out the base guys before it really comes to blows.
Like they're not going to roll in and just hope these guys are going to be loyal to them.
Commie Butcher says, National Guard will not side with Newscomb.
Okay.
Have y'all watched Rambo?
The National Guard, they're our cooks, they're our chefs.
They work at our kitchens and our schools.
They're our neighbors.
People seem to think that National Guard are the same thing as the Army.
When there's a dude who works on weekends for the California National Guard and Newsom threatens to take your children from you, he is going to lick Gavin Newsom's feet.
And you know what?
I know it's crass and probably offensive and it's meant to be a little bit, but I guarantee you, with the left not having children and the right having kids, that's a tremendous amount of leverage the left will use against you.
And you will see there's going to be a guy, it's as simple as a guy you've known forever pointing his gun at you and saying, I'm sorry, but I won't let my kids die.
Right?
If there's a natural disaster and there's two houses, each family has children.
They got two kids.
The kids are diabetic.
I guarantee you, if House A runs out of insulin, the dad is going to go to put a bullet in the mouth of the other dad to get the insulin for his daughter.
They're not going to watch their children die.
And this is the basis of much of earthly conflict that we have seen.
People saying, go near my kids and I will end you.
Or my kids need food and I will do whatever I have to do to get it.
And inversely, powerful people saying, if you don't serve me, I will kill your kids.
And this is not going to be explicit, but this is the question asked of the generals in the Civil War, my home or my country.
And if where you live and the food you have and your resources are tied to the governance of a Democrat, these people are not going to be hyper-partisan.
They're going to say, tell me where to stand.
And that's the conflict you're going to get.
Trump is then going to go to loyalist states and he's going to say, quell the rebellion.
And then you get fighting.
Right now, we're looking at, we're looking through the thin veneer of this.
With Tim Waltz deploying the National Guard, stating we will not let the federal government use us as a prop.
He's saying the National Guard's being deployed to stop Trump and the feds.
And now they're literally fighting federal law enforcement.
We saw already in Portland when the feds aided and I'm sorry, not the feds, the local police aided and abetted Antifa who had been obstructing ICE.
And ICE went to arrest them and the local cops protected them.
Or the arrest of Nick Sortor.
I don't understand why people don't get this.
No, no cop would arrest an innocent conservative.
They've been doing it.
Did Andy No get any help from these people?
Did you guys see what happened to Nick Sortor the other day when he called Minneapolis PD and said they're threatening me?
I need help.
They said, we're not going to help you.
And it's like, what am I supposed to do?
And they're like, two effing bad.
And then he got chased and had to evacuate.
Imagine calling the police in Minnesota thinking they're going to help you.
The police in Minnesota are antifa.
They are the left.
You're basically antifa, quick, help me from save me from antifa.
I think the best thing to do for people is to get to a state that represents your values.
And I know people say, oh, you always say that.
Well, I did it.
I lived in Massachusetts and I moved to Florida.
And I suggest other people do that.
Our Constitution was designed to be limited central government.
And they proposed it.
And with it, it came up with the general welfare clause, the necessary and proper clause, the supremacy clause.
And, you know, New York hated it.
And Rhode Island hated it.
And North Carolina hated it.
So John Hancock was like, hey, guys, how about a Bill of Rights?
And they're like, yeah, that's a great idea.
So then James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights.
So what that means is that there's a Ninth Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment says just because they didn't write it down, it's not a right.
And the 10th Amendment says, well, if it's not written in the articles, then that right belongs to the states and to the individuals.
So we saw that after COVID, during COVID, where, you know, Florida was free.
Florida didn't have anything, any policies going on with COVID, but New York was all locked down and California was all locked down and these states were failing.
And we saw states' rights in action.
We saw it work in action.
So well, the central government that we have now has grown mammoth proportions.
We still have states' rights and we're still able to live in states that are freer.
So when the federal government is not protecting the border, so the federal government came in and said, hey, we're going to, you know, we're in charge of the border here.
And they got in and did that.
However, if they're not fulfilling their duty, the 10th Amendment comes in and says, okay, since they're not fulfilling their duty, then that means the states have the right to fulfill their duty.
So that's when Texas brought in the guard, and that's when Florida sent their guard over to defend the border as well when the federal government was shirping their duty.
I feel like this argument ignores the Ninth Amendment because the Ninth Amendment says that the freedoms or the liberties protected by this Constitution or the Bill of Rights are not intended to say that these are the only freedoms they have.
So basically what the Ninth Amendment does is it reaffirms that people are free.
It says, just because it's not specifically stated in here.
The states required you to proclaim a belief in a Protestant God to hold office, and many still do, despite the fact they don't enforce against it.
So the point is, everybody says the Constitution must be protected, but they don't realize that we, even people on the right, libertarians, conservatives, or otherwise, pro-Second Amendment, do not adhere to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Yeah, because otherwise we'd be arrested for blasphemy.
But if you do want, but if you have a law, if there's a law that you believe infringes on your rights, or you believe that is in conflict with the Constitution, you petition the government, you go to the courts, and you agree.
The Constitution was intended to protect the society and the rights that they had actively.
And they recognized that they would have some arguments and disputes, but 100% of the population agreed.
No one can insult Christ.
To be fair, it wasn't 100 because Jefferson was a deist, and that's why Virginia didn't require you to proclaim a belief in a Protestant God, but God in general.
Maryland, largely being Catholic, required you to, was also more neutral because they were like Protestant, Catholic, whatever you want to do.
Almost all the states up until the mid-1700s, 1700s, required you to literally say Christ is king to hold office.
The founding fathers, when they made the Bill of Rights, if you went to any one of them and said, Hold on, but under the Ninth Amendment, I'm free, so I can make an argument to the court, they'd say, No, you're under arrest.
And it wasn't until I think 1840 was the last arrest for blasphemy.
And the reason the guy actually, I think, went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said, No, you blasphemed, and he got locked up.
Blasphemy is illegal, and you have no right to blaspheme.
Yeah, and then I think throughout the 1700s, they started backing off from requiring you to have a faith in a Christian God.
And then, but it was still the practice.
It was still largely done.
So anyway, long story short, the point is: the Second Amendment, what was the point?
If you lived in Virginia, the federal government couldn't come and take your guns.
Virginia could.
That's why in the 1980s, everything was May issue.
If you wanted a gun, the states could decide not to give you one.
And the Fed was like, don't look at us.
We're not taking your guns from you.
But then we sued, and it wasn't until 2010, the Supreme Court actually said, nah, everybody can have guns.
Because what's happening is, and it's intentional, states' rights are being eroded intentionally over time, and we are in favor of it.
When we argue the federal government, the federal Constitution protects my right to have a gun in West Virginia for constitutional carry, I am saying the federal constitution supersedes the laws and the Constitution of West Virginia.
Okay, then that's federal supremacy over the constitution and laws of a state.
And that's the argument being made by conservatives that Maryland shouldn't be allowed to ban you from having guns, and we are winning in that fight, giving the federal government more power to tell the states you can't.
Which is interesting because nowhere in the Constitution does it say states can't ban guns.
Astronomers were tracking a certain portion of a region of space, and they saw a radio burst that did not look natural and hasn't been repeated that they think may have originated from intelligent life.
Well, 3E Atlas is believed to have originated from the same region of space.
You know, like the idea that we're going to kill ourselves and then the aliens come and say, oh, we launch nukes at each other, blow everybody up, and then the aliens come and harvest the rest.
Yeah, or they recede.
Like everyone's dead, and they're just like, all right, we're going to drop it.
There's a conspiracy theory that at some point in like the 70s during the Cold War, there was an attempt to launch nukes between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and UFOs appeared, and then all of a sudden the nukes deactivated.
1996, retired Air Force personnel claimed that a weapons failure at a Montana nuclear missile complex in 1967 was connected to reports of a UFO at Malmstrom Air Force Base.
The claims became known in UFology as the Malmstrom UFO incident.
Skeptics argue that if UFO was likely Mars and entirely unrelated.
A military investigation found no connection to UFOs.
They say they're operating underground missile complex.
An Air Force report noted that on the 16th, all sites in Echo Flight shut down with no-go indications.
All launch facilities in E-Flight lost strategic alert nearly simultaneously.
No other Wing 1 configuration lost strategic alert at the time.
The report continued, rumors of UFO around the area during the time of the fault were disproven.
That's the conspiracy theory is that the aliens came and stopped us or whatever from nuclear war, which, you know, this proves it.
To Plague Devil's advocate, tensions are actually very high with the U.S. going after all these ships and stuff.
I've made remarks that I don't think that there's considerable danger of World War because of the fact that Russia's kind of shown that it's a paper tiger.
It can't even beat Ukraine.
China, I don't think that China has any kind of designs beyond the South China Sea and Taiwan.
I don't think they want a nuclear war.
It's possible that a world war could be something that isn't nuclear where everyone's kind of just using conventional weapons.
I'm not sold on interstellar travel, like between stars.
I'm not so sure that it's possible.
Obviously, if there's some new physics that we can find, yeah, but it's looking like light speed is the speed limit of the universe.
I mean, even gravity travels at light speed, right?
So if the sun disappeared, not only would the light take eight minutes to get here, but it would take eight minutes for the effect of gravity from the sun to go between space.
The theory behind warp drive would be smashing antimatter in a matter, like a flick in a piston, which warps, emits so much energy, it causes a warp in space.
What if, like, just, you know, in 20 years, magic is real, and, like, scientists are like, we've actually figured out how to cast spells and then just...
And one of the best things about teleportation is they find it, they're going through a list of Somali names and all of a sudden just fired everything.
But then there's like a technical glitch in that they accidentally release a bunch of the portal guns, all programmed for the same coordinates.
And so when too many ice hitchings go out at the same time, all the Somalis portal into the exact same place at the exact same time, all fused together like some Cronenberg messages.
Jay Hamblin says, Tim, isn't that what Andrew Wilson was arguing with you about?
His point was: rights are only what you can enforce.
Yet, no.
My opinion on Andrew Wilson was that he was arguing for the sake of arguing.
Because my argument is that rights are derived from God's will.
The things that you must do to be fruitful and multiply, he argued that that's true, but not like, here's the issue with the debate we had.
He said rights come from God.
And I said, effectively, yes, rights are what we must do to fulfill God's will.
And then he said no.
And so I was like, what?
And yeah.
So when I tried explaining that there is a logic to God's will, because God is the logos, he disagreed and then argued with me that there's an island full of pedophiles that get away with it.
And how is anything they're doing beneficial to God's will or whatever?
And I was like, the presumption of that argument is that it is possible for a society of pedophiles to succeed and fulfill God's will, which clearly everyone agrees is not correct.
So I think he was just arguing for the sake of arguing.
My point is: what are rights as we view them?
The left argues that healthcare is a human right.
Well, that can't be true because that would require you to enslave somebody.
You have a right to enslave somebody because that person then can't fulfill God's will.
But if your goal is to be fruitful and multiply, you have to be able to defend yourself.
You have to be able to communicate with other people for the betterment and success, either through warnings or cooperation.
And you have to have freedom of movement.
We also have to have the ability to stop people who are evil.
These are core functions that we view in our society, our enlightened society, as being rights, things that you are inherently needing to do or able to do.
And why?
Because if you can't, you can't fulfill God's will.
Anyway, I think he disagrees with that.
I think his argument is: it's not about whether you can or can't fulfill God's will, just that it is God's will, which I think is a distinction with no difference.
Token Mega says, I don't understand this argument.
Go to a state that aligns with you while Gen Z can't afford a home, but yeah, we can afford to pack up and leave.
Well, Trump's move on institutional investors in houses are going to crush the housing market.
You're going to buy up a bungalow for 50 bucks now.
And apparently, there's like when Trump made the announcement, people found that a bunch of insiders at Blackstone and other companies were selling off shares.
Well, I think the bigger thing is the conservatives who are defending this woman.
Conservatives coming out and being like, wow, I can't believe the cop would shoot her.
It's like, oh, boy, this is why the right loses.
Because when George Floyd happens, everyone on the right agrees at the left.
All right, that one gamer says about the Greenland situation.
We should show the polls showing majority wanting independence.
Make facts unavoidable avoidable to American voters and lefties.
You guys saw that Greenland and Denmark are fighting?
Greenland called Denmark neo-colonialists for excluding them from the conversation over joining the United States.
Greenland government is saying you can't tell us what to do and has decided to violate the charter they have with Denmark to have private meetings with the United States to negotiate acquisition.
I always thought this was going to be, I thought it was going to be a meme, but honestly, now I'm starting to, I'm probably 50-50 as to whether or not I'm going to meet you.
I'm the biggest Greenland hawk probably in the United States.
Like, I think that is rightfully our territory.
But one hesitation I have is I don't know if we should amplify like leftist anti-colonial sentiment in Greenland because that's just going to cause us problems down the road with the people.
The best case scenario is we annex Greenland.
There's like 80,000 people there and we just flood it with Texans, like oil barons, and then they will just like outpopulate.
Do we believe those that believe in God's will, like, do I have the right to stop you from doing your duty to God?
No, I don't.
However, you, who must fulfill your duty to God, must be able to perform certain actions to fulfill your duty to God.
Now, it's entirely true that people infringe upon rights every single day, but the idea that rights don't exist would mean God has created a world by which you have a duty to him, but other people are allowed to stop you from doing it.
They're allowed to do it.
Like, it is a just thing that God expects that someone will decide you must not be allowed to fulfill your duty to God.
Yeah, like summer of love was because black people were in proximity to downtown areas.
But if black people are not interested in riding this go-around, then there's not enough people near urban areas to actually cause massive riots.
And the way that U.S. cities are structured, it's almost like preventing riots from occurring because you've got to like, if I want to go riots tonight, I got to go drive downtown and then find parking.
And then like, you know, it's like a big, it's a hassle.
But the fact that some of these things take so long, like penetrating through the balloons and then nothing and then deflagration, that's something we didn't see with our naked eye at least.