FORTY FOUR States Now DISPUTING The Election, 126 GOP Reps Sign On REJECTING Biden, Support Trump
FORTY FOUR States Now DISPUTING The Election, 126 GOP Reps Sign On REJECTING Biden, Support Trump. In an (almost) unprecedented move 126 members of the Republican party serving in the US House of Representatives have signed an amici curiae in support of Texas and president Trump.Democrats insist that the lawsuit from Texas is frivolous but at this point it doesn't matterDemocrats and Republicans have drawn lines, neither agrees with the other. Media is complicit and corrupt, lying to the American people.No matter what The Supreme Court rules, no one will accept it.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
44 states are in dispute as to who the president is.
20 of them are in support of saying these four states' legislatures should choose their own electors.
The other 20 are saying they did everything right and four states are being sued and kind of even suing themselves.
But 44 states with six kind of abstaining.
And we got major breaking news as all this moves at lightning speed.
126 members.
of the U.S.
House of Representatives Republican Party have signed a meek eye basically saying we support Texas.
These are people essentially saying Donald Trump did and should win the election.
Or at the very least, they're saying they agree with Texas in this lawsuit, and the Supreme Court needs to allow Texas to file this complaint.
Texas has officially responded.
So Texas filed a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court gave the four defendant states until Thursday to respond, which they did, saying this is bunk, and now it is on Texas to respond, and Texas did.
And I think, you know, this is really crazy.
There's many leftists saying it's frivolous garbage and makes no sense.
But I'm not saying Texas will win.
I don't know if the Supreme Court will even take this up.
Maybe these leftist pundits are right, that the Supreme Court will just throw this out.
But at the very least, you have to recognize that in these states, they did change the rules of the election against the wishes of the state legislators, which does violate the Elector's Clause of the Constitution.
Does that mean they overthrew the election?
No.
But I don't think that even matters at this point.
Right now we've got Pennsylvania in their response saying that Texas is guilty of seditious behavior.
Esquire is writing the Republican Party is now a seditious organization.
That's where we're at.
Sedition.
One half of the country fighting the other half of the country as to who they think the president really is.
I know it's not as simple as that.
Everybody wants a simple answer, but before you on your screen, I am showing you.
This is in the Supreme Court of the United States on motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.
It is U.S.
Representative Mike Johnson and 125 other members of the U.S.
House of Representatives in support of plaintiff's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction.
And I believe we have Kevin McCarthy, the House leader, who has signed on.
64% of the House GOP has now signed on.
Earlier today, a man, I believe it was today, a man testified in Wisconsin that while working for the United States Post Office, he was instructed to deliver backdated ballots, over 100,000, and there's no real response.
The mainstream media, I should say rebuttal, the mainstream media has responded by saying it wouldn't matter anyway, because they wouldn't count.
I don't think it matters.
My friends, after the story of Hunter Biden broke just the other day, two days ago, that the criminal investigations are real, that Joe Biden's brother is being investigated, We can't trust the mainstream media.
They intentionally withheld this information.
They lied to us.
They said none of it was true.
Now, most of us who pay attention, we know the story was legitimate because we read the emails.
But they're manipulating the public and the American people.
Why now, when they write that this story is meritless and meaningless, should I believe them?
Why now, when they say that this man, this whistleblower, Wisconsin, is lying or irrelevant, why should I believe them?
Maybe there's a good reason.
Or maybe the divide, the decoupling in this country is so severe, the two realities will never be mended, and no one will ever trust the other side.
But why would I?
I saw exactly what you saw.
Joe Biden helping facilitate his son's business dealings in China by flying him on Air Force Two and the media trying to cover it up to protect a corrupt politician to allow him to enrich himself off of the backs of working people in this country.
And now they would say to shut up when it comes to this lawsuit pertaining to Texas and the whistleblowers.
Let's start breaking down what's going on because we have the official response from Texas and I want to show you just a couple of things.
I want to show you at least one definitive thing that shows.
Regardless of any fraud claims on constitutional grounds, I want to see a response that actually explains how these states were able to change the election rules against the wishes of the legislators and that the Constitution does not matter.
I want to hear how they explain that.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
There's a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let people know what's going on because, my friends, it is getting very, very bad.
I want to show you this.
From Scott Adams.
Google just shut me down, he says.
The video they deleted is no different from all my other content.
I assume they'll come for other videos soon.
Scott Adams posted a screenshot where it's a message from YouTube saying, our policy says content that advances false claims that widespread fraud errors or glitches, and I'm not going to complete the sentence because I don't want to get flagged either, that you cannot claim that these issues affected the outcome of the election.
They've removed Scott Adams' content.
Please consider supporting my channel by sharing this video.
So that we can get the message out to the best of our abilities before YouTube finally does take it down.
But don't forget to subscribe, hit the like button, hit the notification bell.
Here's the story from the Hill, and then we'll get into the spicy stuff.
All eyes on Supreme Court in Texas fight, they say.
The consensus among election law experts is that the court will roundly reject Texas's extraordinary request to invalidate Biden's win in the four key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
With the filing of its reply brief on Friday morning, Texas cleared the way for the court to issue an order on its request for a preliminary injunction.
Perhaps later that same day.
Some court watchers expect the court will act no later than Sunday, ahead of the next day's Electoral College meetings, to formalize Biden's win over President Trump.
Now, it's true.
Many law experts have said this will get rejected.
And there actually is one decent argument, at the very least.
When they say that these four states violated the Electors Clause, Many other states did as well.
Why isn't Texas suing all the other states?
Now, some are saying that the Attorney General in Texas who filed the lawsuit is only doing so because he's facing a federal investigation and wants a pardon.
But that makes no sense.
Georgia's state legislature has also signed on, arguing they were wronged.
U.S.
House representatives have signed on saying they did violate the Constitution.
So you can argue this one guy is bad or whatever, but then all these other people signing on or intervening, well, they could just file on their own if they wanted to.
One person does not negate the claims being made.
But of course, there are some Trump-supporting lawyers who have said they don't think this will go anywhere.
It's a long-shot idea.
But I don't think that matters.
And that's the important part here.
That does not matter to me.
What matters is that we're at a point where 44 states are currently in dispute over who the president will be.
This is, I would say, unprecedented, but the United States has had a civil war in the past, so, of course, people like to say it's never gonna happen.
My friends, 44 states.
If the Supreme Court comes out and says, this is ridiculous and we reject this, do you think 126 members of the House are just going to say, okay, sure, whatever?
On Twitter right now there are people tweeting that the GOP House members who signed onto this have committed sedition and should be censured and booted from all committees.
Some are saying the Republican Party should be completely removed.
And some are even saying that Republicans are a faction, not a party.
By supporting the President's efforts to overturn the election, the party is endangering its very existence, says Robert A. George.
We have moved well beyond whether or not this is about procedure or process.
We're at the point where both sides are accusing each other of staging a coup.
One side doesn't believe Joe Biden actually won.
The other side doesn't believe Donald Trump actually won.
One side has the mainstream media making tons of claims, but we now see that the mainstream media lied about Hunter Biden, so why would I believe anything they publish?
They're coming out and admitting Joe Biden's family is under criminal investigation, and they withheld this information, calling it not news, and they called it Russian disinformation, and now they would come out and expect me to believe them.
The realities in this country were fractured in two.
From Breitbart, Pennsylvania to U.S.
Supreme Court, Texas guilty of seditious behavior.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania accused Texas of sedition in its filing Thursday at the U.S.
Supreme Court, responding to a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the presidential vote of four other states on constitutional grounds.
The only problem?
Members of the state house legislature, the General Assembly, have filed briefs in support of Texas.
So this is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I believe as per the Attorney General, but not the state legislators.
Pennsylvania said that Texas was guilty of seditious abuse of the judicial process.
Sedition is commonly understood as rebellion and is defined more precisely in federal criminal law as an attempt to overthrow the United States government.
As Breitbart News was the first to report, Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin on Monday night, that we understand.
Pennsylvania and other states filed their responses on Thursday, saying, Since Election Day, state and federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swathes of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election.
The state of Texas has now added its voice to a cacophony of bogus claims.
Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees.
It requests for this court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas's preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to the principles of constitutional democracy.
Texas's effort to get this court to pick the next president has no basis in law or fact.
The court should not abide by this seditious abuse of the judicial process and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
I don't believe that anybody will be satisfied by the results of what's to come.
No one was satisfied on November 3rd, November 7th.
No one was satisfied on December 8th, the Safe Harbor deadline.
And now I bring it to Mark E. Elias, a Democrat.
He is a, I believe, he runs Democracy Docket.
He's a lawyer fighting for Democrats.
And in response to the earlier news of the Kraken Caucus, they called it, 106 House members, it's now 126, he says, I am shaken by this Texas case.
Not because it will prevail.
It won't.
But because something is seriously wrong with our democracy.
That these elected leaders who know better are using the courts to spread lies and undermine our elections.
This makes me very worried.
This is in response to Jake Tapper, who said, The Kraken Caucus, 106 House Republicans and 18
state attorneys general who signed onto a anti-democracy lawsuit to disenfranchise
millions of their fellow Americans based on lies and conspiracy theories. Well, Jake Tapper,
if only you were a journalist.
Because Jake Tapper pooh-poohed the story about Hunter Biden when it was brought up on his show that the Bidens had profited from China.
He says, I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.
Now he does.
Now he is tweeting.
Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, the Biden family, are facing very serious criminal investigations pertaining to potential money laundering and other contracts and illicit business dealings.
So, Jake Tapper, no, I don't take your word for it.
I believe you're just another one of these fake news journalists.
It's only a matter of time before YouTube bans me the same as they did Scott Adams, and I'm fully aware of that, but I'm going to keep talking about what needs to be talked about.
Take a look at this video.
This is a man named Ethan Pease.
Pease was a driver, and the story he tells is quite shocking.
massive election irregularities in Wisconsin.
This is a man named Ethan Pease.
Pease was a driver, and the story he tells is quite shocking.
He said that he was told by postal workers where he was working, they were backdating
ballots.
He said that one night he went to deliver ballots, and the next day they said, you missed a pallet of a hundred thousand.
He said, I didn't believe I did, and asked, am I going to get in trouble?
And he was told basically, no.
Go ahead.
Bring these ballots in.
Based on what he had heard about backdating, he was very concerned, and now he is blowing the whistle.
How do you think mainstream media is responding to these very serious accusations?
I'm not saying it's true.
Not at all.
He's one guy.
I want to see the truck.
Show me the evidence.
You can make your claim.
But I'll tell you this.
Is it enough to say, can we please look into this?
I think so.
Is it enough to say there's definitive proof?
Come on, man.
To quote Joe Biden, I know a lot of people want me to say hard yes.
I've absolutely said I think things are strange and all that stuff, but this has to go through a legitimate process.
And you know what?
Maybe we don't have enough time to do that hard investigation.
I take what he's saying seriously.
Legitimately.
And it must be looked into.
But take a look at this from PolitiFact.
This is from stated December 2nd, 2020 on Facebook.
Alleged backdated ballots wouldn't have been counted even if USPS claim were true.
If your time is short, they say this is false.
They say, we can't yet say if the backdating claims are true, but we know they didn't affect the Wisconsin vote totals.
Let me issue a correction.
We can't say if the backdating claims are true.
That's a fact.
But it absolutely would have affected Wisconsin vote totals.
It doesn't mean that it did, okay?
That's important.
For all I know, this guy is lying.
I understand he signed a sworn affidavit.
He's a whistleblower.
But take it with a grain of salt, and we'll see how these things play out.
And I will stress, I run the risk of being banned for just telling you it happened.
No joke.
They could remove this video.
They go on to say absentee ballots had to be received by the time polls closed on election day to be counted.
The date doesn't matter if the ballots weren't submitted by then.
They would just say they were.
Okay, you see how ridiculous that is?
All Wisconsin election results were reported by 4 a.m.
November 4th before the alleged backdating referenced by this purported whistleblower.
Now that is a legitimate point which does call this into question.
But they could have just said it was received prior or Or not.
But yes, if the vote totals were reported, then I believe this claim is likely moot.
It's just...
You know, I guess the point I'm trying to bring up with something like this is, I don't trust the mainstream media.
I don't trust this comment right here, even though it is a good point.
I can't assume it's true.
I'm not saying it's wrong.
I'm just saying, the media has done too much to shake my confidence in their reporting in the past several years.
I've ragged on the media and the lies, and that's what I'm trying to get at here.
This is moving at lightning speed.
By the time I finish recording this video, this is the... I waited to the last minute.
By the time I finish recording this video, Supreme Court may have issued a ruling, and then this video becomes completely pointless, and that's a challenge with fast-moving stories like this.
And that's why the most important thing...
That I'm talking about here is not whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor or in opposition to what Texas is saying.
The important point is that no one will be satisfied.
And we are heading towards probably the most ridiculous outcome ever.
The accusation that either party is wrong, evil, or seditious.
We have this one from Esquire.
I've referenced it a bit, but let me show you what they say.
Esquire says, nothing secedes like secession.
Late Wednesday afternoon, in as clear a demonstration as there ever has been of an authoritarian rot at the heart of the Republican Party, 17 other states, all governed primarily by Republicans, filed an amicus brief in support of the ludicrous lawsuit being brought by Ken Paxton.
17 accomplices, he says, to the braindead seditious conspiracy.
He's calling it a seditious conspiracy.
This story is from December 9th.
It is now December 11th.
And that number is 19 states.
Sorry.
Including Texas, that gives us 20.
And this is where it gets much more serious.
Robert A. George says it's not a faction.
I'm sorry, it's not a party.
It's a faction.
Okay.
Call it a faction, by all means.
Call it a faction.
They say, with each passing day, President Donald Trump's lawsuits continue to mount in court challenges to the election results.
See, this is a lie.
They say, as of this writing, by one count, the campaign is 1-53.
No, it isn't.
The Trump campaign did not file 53 lawsuits.
I believe the Trump campaign has filed 3, according to Rudy Giuliani. 3.
The other 50 are brought by citizens and voters and Republicans, not Donald Trump.
But you see why I say the media, it's hard to trust.
You can't trust them.
They're lying to make it seem like Trump is being defeated left and right.
Today, the states of New California and New Nevada, which don't exist, Filed amicus briefs with the amicus curiae in support of Texas.
And they are roundly mocked.
Because who is New California and New Nevada?
But it's things like that that exist to discredit Texas and Trump and the Republicans.
And then the media will use that to claim, you see, this proves it.
These people are crazy.
But we don't know who filed these insane... Oh, we do know their names are on them.
But it's not California or Nevada who's signing this.
It's ridiculous.
It's insane.
These lawsuits being filed that aren't from the Trump campaign could be intentionally dumb just to make Trump look like a loser so that the media can come out and say over and over again, he lost!
They're mostly, I believe, an appeal, but I believe they're basically just not going well for him.
So Trump's one in three.
You can be honest about it, right?
Well, Trump has filed an intervention to join Texas as an injured party.
And by saying the Republican Party is a faction, by one magazine saying they're engaging in sedition, by Pennsylvania saying in their filing this is sedition, that's why I say at this point SCOTUS doesn't matter.
Pennsylvania believes that Texas is in a state of rebellion.
If the Supreme Court says no to Texas, does that change the fact that Texas is in a state of rebellion?
It doesn't.
It just means that one side will be left unsatisfied.
Missouri had an interesting argument.
Missouri said they don't necessarily agree with Texas, but they want the court to hear them out.
And I believe that's the right approach.
I don't know if Texas is right or wrong, but Texas does point out that many of the rules in these states were changed against the wishes of the Republican legislators.
Now, I believe it was the governor of Montana who said, we did the same thing.
Why are you not suing us?
And I think the issue is a question of whether or not there is a challenge brought to these states.
Nobody's challenging Montana.
The margin is too large.
We know who Montana voted for.
But in these other four states, it is relatively close.
Not so much in Michigan, so that is a decent argument.
But it doesn't negate the argument outright.
It just means, okay, fine, we'll sue you too, I guess.
Well, they don't need to.
That's the issue.
But it is a good point.
Texas should have sued basically every state, but maybe that would have been too much.
The issue now, however, to counter this is that Within these states, the state legislators have signed on as amicus briefs supporting the suit.
Is the state legislator of Montana in dispute?
Are they challenging what's happening and asking for help or some kind of relief?
No?
Then why would it make sense to sue them?
At any moment, the Supreme Court will rule.
And we will either have the left being angry or the right being angry.
If the Supreme Court decides to grant leave and the case moves forward, things will stay kind of as they are.
Slow and nothing much will happen.
If they reject this, there is going to be uproarious revolt.
I'm not saying people in the streets with guns or anything like that.
But let me just tell you, 126 House Republicans have signed on, correct?
On January 6th, when the actual votes are counted in a joint session of Congress, if we have 126 Republicans demanding that this be disputed, it doesn't just get resolved.
Now, without a majority, I don't see them changing anything, and maybe they revolt, they rabble, Joe Biden becomes president, and then in the months moving forward, things start to break down as nobody cooperates with each other, and things get spicy.
I don't know.
I don't know because I can't predict the future.
But I'll tell you what I can do.
I can do this.
Forbes says Donald Trump's presidency will end on the day of a comet, a media shower, and a total eclipse of the sun.
I know I'm not superstitious.
I'm not into astrology or anything like that.
But I believe there is a funny quote from JP Morgan where he says millionaires don't follow astrology, billionaires do.
I don't.
But I do love this idea.
Donald Trump.
See, on December 14th, there's going to be the appearance of a comet, the, I believe it's the genomids, the genomides, I don't know how to pronounce it, meteor shower, and there will be a total solar eclipse of the sun in South America.
Okay, in South America, not in North America, so maybe it's less relevant.
But something else is going to be happening this month.
You see, Forbes says this will happen on Monday, the day the Electoral College is set to vote.
We will get a meteor shower and a comet.
And yes, yes, it's not entirely fair, but a solar eclipse of the sun.
Something else is happening.
Christmas star will be closest visible conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 800 years.
Come on!
I know it's silly, right?
But you mean to tell me that on the winter solstice, December 21st, 2020, I believe that's the darkest day of the year, Jupiter and Saturn will align in conjunction for the brightest visible conjunction in 800 years!
It's happening now.
It's not just going to blink overnight.
You can probably see it right now.
They're probably right next to each other.
Or very, very close.
These celestial events occurring on such an important day.
Well, important week, I suppose.
This week between the 14th and the 21st is going to be ever so spicy.
As the Electoral College votes are cast, the Supreme Court issues their ruling just, presumably just prior.
Maybe today.
Or it's tomorrow or Sunday.
Maybe even on Monday.
And then the planets align, and the meteor showers happen, and boy, what a silly, silly time to be alive.
Okay, I'm not actually suggesting that, you know, these states—I'm sorry, that these celestial events mean anything, but I do find it kind of funny because there was this viral video of this woman saying that Joe Biden was going to win, like, in October, because of his, like, identity-forward astrology axes—I have no idea what she was talking about.
But it was funny and everybody was sharing it and having a laugh about it, and then Biden won.
But yeah, come on.
Like, you know, you could flip a coin and argue.
There's two choices.
It doesn't mean it's 50-50, but people were making bets across the board.
Some said Trump, some said Biden.
We get it.
Sometimes people were right.
But she also says in this astrology video that something is going to change.
The fundamental nature of leadership in this country will change.
And then we learn, on December 21st, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, the brightest in 800 years.
A sign?
A portent?
A vision in the sky?
I don't know, probably not.
But I tell ya, if I were to tell ya, if I was to say two years ago, 44 states would be in a legal dispute over who the president was gonna be, ya wouldn't have believed me.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's just stick around, be patient, and wait to see what happens as Supreme Court is set to make their announcement soon.
And, uh, it's not over.
Because come January 6th, the Republicans could still dispute this, and we'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
My friends, tonight, 8pm, live, at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL will be likely the biggest show we've ever had, and could precipitate the end of my career on this platform.
I don't really think so, but, um...
Prepare for what is going to be one of the silliest, craziest, and most fun shows we've done.
I hope you know what that means.
I will see you at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash Timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all then.
And then maybe not tomorrow.
We'll find out.
Thanks for hanging out.
What's happening is a civil war between... No, no, no, no, no.
It's not a civil war, my friends.
It's simply stark cultural differences between two parent factions that have been fighting
each other in the streets in an escalating fashion for several years.
We also had the outgoing administration, the presidential administration, aligned with
one faction targeting the incoming administration with dubious investigations pertaining to Russia
and then trying to imprison a former general.
And then one faction, the left, tries to impeach and remove the president because he's part
of the other faction, which brings us to an election where many people are calling it
into question.
And then one state files a lawsuit saying these four states violate the Constitution
and then 19 other states file in support of them.
And then 20 states and two other territories file in support of these four states.
And then the FBI subpoenas the guy who started that lawsuit.
Okay, let me slow down.
Did you make it through that bit?
Call it what you want.
Maybe it's a civil war, maybe it's not.
Maybe you just wouldn't realize what a civil war would look like.
But let me tell you, when there's an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General saying that four states violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution and members of the Pennsylvania House General Assembly, these are actual people in Pennsylvania and the state is targeting this lawsuit, agreeing we have a filing By members of the state legislature in Georgia saying Texas is right.
The electors clause was violated.
The state changed the rules without our approval.
That's true.
What Ken Paxton has asserted in his lawsuit is true.
But what are we seeing now from the left?
That Ken Paxton is a criminal and he must be investigated.
He's corrupt.
He accepted bribery.
And maybe all of that's true.
Maybe.
Or it's also possible, in my opinion, it's extremely suspicious that on December 10th, we got news that whistleblowers have made allegations against Ken Paxton, the guy who filed the lawsuit in Texas, which is being supported by, I believe, 106 members of the U.S.
House of Representatives, 20 states, and large portions of the General Assemblies or state legislatures in some of these target states.
This guy is not just making things up to get a pardon.
Because if that were the case, all of these other states and individuals would not have signed on.
But that's the narrative.
The left is saying that Ken Paxson only filed this publicity stunt lawsuit hoping that Donald Trump would give him a pardon.
If that's the case, why are these subpoenas coming now after the lawsuit was filed?
Perhaps He knew it was coming, so he rushed in and said, I'm going to write something in support of Trump.
But Trump's been talking about pardoning anybody who simply asks for it.
If that's true, I think this is what you would see in a civil war.
The FBI, they say, oh, but it's Trump's FBI.
Oh, spare me.
The FBI that went after Flynn and Trump has been fighting to defend him?
No, it isn't.
How about the FBI under Bill Barr that knew Hunter Biden was under investigation and quite properly did not disclose that to the public, but the journalists didn't either.
The FBI does not come to the beck and call of Donald Trump.
It doesn't serve him.
And so you absolutely have individuals in the FBI now going after Ken Paxton, and this is... It doesn't matter.
Look, it doesn't matter if he's actually committed these crimes of bribery and abuse of office, because we are in top-tier factional conflict.
A lot of people think they know what Civil War would look like, and I think it's because everyone imagines that one day you'll be sitting in your home, and you'll turn on CNN or Fox News, and you'll have, you know, Bill Hemmer or Anderson Cooper go, Ladies and gentlemen, America is in Civil War!
And then everyone will be like, Oh, well, you know, I guess that's it.
Or maybe at a certain point, you just have to say, I think we understand what's happening.
They are trying to lock up the man who has filed the lawsuit, or I should say, they've subpoenaed amid whistleblower allegations.
Remember the whistleblower allegations against Donald Trump?
I gotta slow down here.
Donald Trump was on a phone call with Ukraine, the president, and he was like, this is weird stuff with Joe Biden we gotta look into.
Can you look into this?
And a whistleblower accused Trump of trying to, I guess, dig up dirt on his political rival even though Biden wasn't running for president.
We now know that the Biden family is under criminal investigation, and not just Hunter Biden, his brother Jim as well.
And Joe Biden's the one who facilitated some of these deals in question.
So Donald Trump was right.
Donald Trump was trying to investigate legitimate corruption we now know is confirmed, and they sought to impeach him for it.
Now, Ken Paxton, perhaps he's a bad guy, sure.
Has filed a lawsuit from Texas, supported by all these other states, and the FBI shows up and says, subpoena this guy.
Let me read you a little bit of the story, and I want to go through where we are right now, because we are in the thick of it.
We have, I mean look, states are lining up.
But the most fascinating thing, and the most important, is a statement from Georgia, members of the Georgia State Legislature, who filed a brief on behalf of Texas saying, Please, Supreme Court, hear what we have to say.
The Elector's Clause was violated.
For those who are not familiar, it's complicated stuff, I know.
The Constitution says that the ultimate authority for for elections and how they're put together is the state
legislature. In Georgia, the rules were changed by the courts and by the governor and the
Democratic Party. No joke. Yeah, there was a settlement. And they say that's that's not okay. Here's the
story from KVUE. FBI subpoenas Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton amid whistleblower allegations.
FBI agents have issued at least one federal subpoena for records from the Texas Attorney General's office in an ongoing investigation into allegations against Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Sources confirmed to KVUE the requests for information were issued on Wednesday at the agency's headquarters on West 14th Street.
It was not immediately clear how many subpoenas were issued or what information federal agents sought.
The investigation started after top Paxton aides alleged to the FBI in early October they believe Paxton may be committing crimes that include abuse of office and bribery in his dealings with Austin investor Nate Paul.
So this goes back to well before the election.
The left is arguing that he's only filed a lawsuit as a stunt to get a pardon from Trump.
I mentioned this.
And perhaps that's a fair argument.
I don't think it matters.
I don't think it matters at all.
Take a look at this.
Stephen Colbert.
This is what he said in his bit.
Hmm, I forget.
What do you call it when a bunch of states band together to say the other states elected the wrong president?
Colbert said, feigning a memory lapse, some sort of grouping or confederation of states.
I see why they kept all those flags now.
Colbert is joking, but he's making, you know, this humor is based in politics.
He's saying there's a brooding civil war coming.
You can tell me I'm nuts.
You can tell me I'm crazy.
I think y'all are crazy.
Maybe it stops here.
Maybe these 20 states and 105 U.S.
reps and the state legislatures and some of these defendant states, maybe they all just say, well, you know, we lost the lawsuit.
That's the way the system works.
Thanks and have a nice day.
Or maybe they say, no, you violated the Constitution and we will not.
We will not respect Joe Biden as the president.
I don't know.
I have no idea what's going to happen.
But please tell me what you would call it when Colbert himself is alluding to a civil war.
When they're trying to, when they're going after the guy who actually filed the lawsuit.
They tried to prosecute a former general.
I mean, isn't that a red flag?
It's like the biggest red flag.
This is what I want to show you.
This is an amici curiae brief for members of the state legislature of Georgia, breaking down why Texas is correct.
Before I do, I want to throw it to my good old friends over at thedonald.win who actually make memes and mock me quite a bit, but they have a great breakdown of what's happening.
Take a look at this.
In a post on thedonald.win, they say, This is my best attempt at putting together a bunch of lists of who has filed what for which cause.
I may be missing some things or have a few things wrong, so feel free to correct me.
But it was driving me crazy having to piece together the whole picture from a bunch of posts, tweets, and articles.
Here's the rundown.
I'm gonna stop here.
Tell you why I'm using the Donald.
There is no single article telling us what's going on, and I think the reason is, what is NBC talking about right now, COVID?
They're not talking about what's happening.
They don't want to talk about what's happening because it's good for Trump.
So these mainstream outlets aren't covering it.
You'll see some local outlets say, you know, Texas AG says this and Mississippi AG says that.
Let me show you.
As of right now, Texas is the plaintiff filing the lawsuit.
Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have filed intervention with the Supreme Court saying they want to be listed as plaintiffs.
The court may not approve that, so as of right now, it is Texas.
We then have Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arizona, Alaska, as filing amici curiae, meaning we support this.
We agree with them.
Intervening parties.
Donald Trump has asked to intervene as a plaintiff.
Michigan state legislatures.
Okay, so Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania are being sued for violating the Elector's Clause.
Michigan state legislatures, PA state legislatures, and Georgia PA and Michigan state legislators have filed an intervention saying, we are injured parties.
Georgia legislature has filed a support of this.
PA voters, Dr. Linda Lee Tarver and the Amistad Project and the Thomas More Society.
You have supporting parties, constitutional attorneys, the PA General Assembly, PA State Senators, Christian Family Coalition, 106 U.S.
House Reps.
Arizona State Legislators, Idaho State Legislators, Idaho Lieutenant Governor, Freedom Fund, GA State Legislators, and Lynn Wood.
On the fence we have Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Wyoming.
I do think Idaho has now joined Texas in this.
The defendant states are Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Now, we have 20 states in support of these four states.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.
We have three territories, Guam, the U.S., Virgin Islands, Washington, D.C., and other parties supporting the defendant states.
Detroit, China, the FBI, MSM, Silicon Valley, we get the point.
What do you call it?
20 states versus 20 states.
That is not my president.
What do you call it?
I know what Colbert calls it.
Stephen Colbert says it's like the forming of a confederation of states.
He said it's a civil war.
It's the red states versus the blue states.
It is the left versus the right, the Democrats versus Republicans.
It is escalating factional conflict in the political world, but also reaching the streets.
We're in the information age, my friends.
Warfare is almost entirely digital.
Cyberwar has been a key component in manipulating markets and controlling economies and taking control.
It is much easier to control a population or a country with information and manipulation than it is with warfare.
Warfare is difficult.
Killing people is, first of all, not easy.
They fight back.
But more importantly, it generates resistance.
Convincing people to just give up, stop having kids, lay down, and just shutter your country are all things that have been done throughout history.
In an attempt to win a war in the long run.
Well, now in the information age, they need only buy ads and promote organizations that would subvert the United States.
Of course, the left says Trump is a fascist, and the right says Trump is actually the hero and the nationalist who's gonna, you know, save this country.
I believe, personally, that Joe Biden is corrupted by China.
And we now know, all these stories are coming out, that Hunter Biden, they're now confirming it, finally.
Only a month, just over a month after the election, we're at that point.
I want to show you this.
The statements made by the Georgia State Legislature.
They say, in this, with two exceptions, movements are elected to and currently serving in the General Assembly of the State of Georgia, which is the legislature of the state.
All but one of the movements served in the legislature in 2019, when that body last amended the statutory law governing elections in Georgia.
In the months before the November 3rd election, and without notice to, or permission from, the state legislature, Georgia election officials committed acts that were contrary to Georgia statutory law.
These acts described below usurped the plenary power granted by the U.S.
Constitution to Georgia legislature to prescribe the manner of elections held for federal officials in Georgia U.S.
Constitution Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.
On March 6, the Democratic Party of Georgia V. Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State and other members of the State Election Board, hereby collectively called BOARD, entered into a compromise settlement agreement and release with the Democratic Party of Georgia, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that materially altered the statutory requirements for reviewing and verifying signatures on absentee ballot envelopes to confirm the voter's identity.
Let me stop right there.
Let me break down what they're saying for you.
The Constitution says state legislators control the elections.
The Secretary of State and the Democratic Party altered those rules.
The left has said, in response, many of these states responded saying, it violates, not only, there's no merit here, they say there's no standing, and it violates latches.
Let me break those down.
Standing means, are you the injured party with the right to sue?
Well, I guess technically you could say Texas isn't.
Because Texas's grounds for standing is that the vice president is the tiebreaker in the Senate, and that if Kamala Harris is made president by these, you know, rulebreakers, they will be negatively impacted in their representation.
So you mean I have to wait for my business to be destroyed?
Yes, because you must have sustained some injury, in fact.
Right now, we have reached that criteria.
The Georgia legislators who are filing suit have been injured.
The alteration of the rules by parties not granted the power by the Constitution has resulted in a negative, an unfavorable outcome The election result has injured the Republican Party and the state legislators and some of these states.
Not only is this not, in my opinion, is not a lawyer violating latches because they filed it almost immediately, that's reasonable, after they had injury, but they have standing as well.
This is legitimate.
And it's not just the Georgia legislators.
It is Pennsylvania and Michigan who have basically said the same things.
The rules were changed without our permission.
And we have sustained injury due to this.
I don't know if the Supreme Court's going to take it up.
I don't know if it matters.
20 states have said Joe Biden is not the president.
20 states and three territories have said Joe Biden is the president.
So, uh, who becomes president?
They go on to bring up a bit more, but I want to show you now what I believe to be one of the, uh, the, I don't want to say this is more important.
This is also very massive.
This right here is a amicus curiae brief and amicus curiae motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae and brief amicus curiae of U.S.
Representative Mike Johnson and 105 other members of the U.S.
House of Representatives in support of plaintiff's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction.
Look, I may be biased, and you might be as well, but I read this and I say, I don't believe these states had the right to change the rules of their election, and I said it for months leading up to this.
I said, how can you change the rules in the 11th hour of an election?
We now know that state legislatures in these states didn't approve of any of this.
So the elections are void, plain and simple.
The Democrats wanted to change the rules and they pushed too hard.
They broke the rules, they pushed as hard as possible in an attempt to win, and now they've risked losing everything.
Think about it.
They could have actually just won.
I mean, in Michigan, the lead is, what, 150,000?
They didn't need any of this.
They could have just said vote, and guess what?
They would have won.
But they wanted to break the rules.
Well, I don't know if they would have won.
But maybe that's it.
They wanted to break the rules.
And what I mean by breaking the rules is alter the game in the months leading up with mail-in voting and court negotiations that did not go through the proper channels.
And now, you have these House of Representatives.
I mean, this is... Steve Scalise, Gary Palmer, Mike Johnson, Ralph Abraham, Rick W. Allen.
I mean, this is just massive.
Absolutely massive.
I do want to read a little bit from this, but I have to scroll through all of the names because there's a ridiculous amount of pages, they say.
Pursuant to subparagraph 2B, rule 37, Amiki Amikai, U.S.
Representative Mike Johnson, et al., hereby move the court for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of Texas.
The brief is being filed timely, and it was filed by approximately the same time as defendants' response to plaintiffs' motions.
In support, they state, As members of the federal legislature, Amikai seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in establishing the manner by which presidential electors are appointed to ensure the Electoral College selects the candidate for President of the United States that was chosen by counting only lawful votes.
Long story short, It's about the Constitution.
They say, Due to the press of time to file this amicus brief, before the deadline given to defendants and the need to coordinate among the amici, the position of the parties on this motion is unknown.
For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully request the court to grant them leave to file the brief amicus curiae, which is appended here too.
Now, interestingly as well, I just wanted to mention that you have the House members doing it.
One of the things included in the, uh, in the brief on the Georgia legislation is an affidavit of Benjamin A. Overholt, who goes on to talk about, um, impropriety and, uh, irregularities.
A couple years ago, I said that I felt like we were on track for a civil war.
And people said, the states aren't going to be lining up against each other.
And my response was, they don't need to.
It doesn't need, you know, Oregon's interests aren't necessarily the same as New York's.
You don't need states lining up against each other.
And if I told you years ago, if I said, oh look at all this violence in the street, it's only a matter of time before 20 states are lined up against another 20 states, arguing over who the real president is.
Shut up!
You mean to tell me that half the country is arguing over who the real president is?
That's nuts.
That'll never happen.
We're gonna have an election.
I probably would have said, I would have agreed.
I wouldn't believe it's possible.
But I kept saying, what we're seeing is bringing us towards a civil war.
It's remarkable to me.
I see these people who to this day still say, you know, all these people think there's going to be a civil war.
Obama's administration tried arresting a former general.
Can you stop and think about that for a second?
I want you to sit, I want you, you're probably sitting, I want you to think about something.
Imagine you're reading the news and you hear that in Venezuela, Maduro announced that he was sent in a bunch of, you know, federal authorities trying to arrest a general.
You'd be like, whoa, what's going on?
Like this former general, whoa, and this guy was an advisor to like a chief political rival?
What's ha- oh man!
That happened years ago!
Barack Obama, Comey, Biden, Yates, they went after Michael Flynn and they claimed he lied.
And that was their justification to put Trump's acting national security advisor in prison.
In prison, the previous administration and the people who were in his FBI went after
the acting national security as national security advisor, sorry, of the of incoming president
and a former general to put him in prison.
Any other country and you would have said, whoa, this is a coup.
Trump supporters have been saying it's a coup for a long time.
But when a coup doesn't just work and you have from the highest level, the president, the former president, an attempted arrest of a former general and advisor to the incoming president, fights in the streets, That was years ago, and people still said, it's not a civil war, it's just, you know... And now we have 20 states versus 20 states.
Maybe it all just goes away, like I said.
I can't, I can't tell you.
Because if the Supreme Court refuses to hear this, that may be the best outcome in terms of avoiding a true conflict, a true hot civil war.
But I think that could still lead to 20 states and all these individuals revolting and saying no.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this, actually, I tell you, I think the best case is the Supreme Court agrees to hear it, and then, well, I shouldn't say best case, but let me just, let me just tell you what I think happens.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, To allow leave.
And then they rule against Republicans.
I think there will be tensions, and Republicans may still reject the ruling, but many might respect the ruling and say, what do we do?
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear, then I think within these 20 states, people are going to be screaming, saying, we can't even get our voice heard.
And that's when things snap.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, And the Supreme Court agrees on the merits, which I think are undeniable.
They're saying outright, these things happened.
They are facts.
You can't ignore them.
Trump wins.
Trump becomes president.
And the left revolts.
And then you get hot conflict.
I don't see a way out.
I've been saying it over and over again.
I only ask that if you would like to say Tim Poole is stupid and, you know, and for thinking there's gonna be a civil war, I only ask that you say this first.
Tim Poole is stupid for thinking there's gonna be a civil war when there's factional street violence for several years, an attempted arrest of a former general, and 20 states are fighting with another 20 states over who the real president is.
Tell me I'm crazy when I'm looking at 20 states argue with another 20 states over who the president is and say, you don't think we are in civil war territory.
Like I said, there's no guarantee it reaches hot conflict.
But come on.
If there were signs or indications that we are in this territory, this would be it.
And we could potentially avoid it.
But when was the last time all of these things came together?
And I'll wrap it back with one final thought.
Tell me that I'm crazy and there's no civil war, everything I just said, and then the FBI is subpoenaing the man who filed the lawsuit, challenging who the president really is.
Okay.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
We'll see how things play out in the meantime, and I will see you all then.
All this talk of macro-level civil war-type conflict and lawsuits, it's getting crazy.
And we gotta talk about the micro-level, what's going on on the ground in terms of individuals rejecting state authority.
Several months ago, when the riots reached their peak, I asked whether or not the Attorney General of Oregon suing the federal government, saying you have no authority to enforce the laws surrounding your own property, I wondered if that was the start of some kind of civil war.
Because many states were supporting Oregon.
Now we're at the point where—okay, revised numbers, my friends.
You have 24 Democratic states on one side saying Joe Biden is president, and 20 states on the other saying, no, Donald Trump is president.
Okay, now hold on.
That's not specifically what they're saying.
But they may as well be, because what these 20 states suing these four states, these Democrat states are saying, or the swing states, is that the electorate should be chosen by the state legislators, and the votes are all bunk.
Now, here's big news.
Texas has responded to the four states they filed a leave to complain against.
So we are officially at the point where we are now waiting patiently and in sheer suspense for the Supreme Court to announce if they will grant leave to file a complaint and we will be moving forward.
SCOTUS could just be like, GTFO, y'all.
So while we're sitting here desperately waiting for an answer, something's happening on the ground.
The second autonomous zone.
Well, maybe not really the second, because there were a bunch of other autonomous zones, but you probably recall the CHAZ.
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, where all these far leftists put up barricades, seized a bit of land, and then, you know, basically harassed everybody, and a ton of people died!
It actually did.
There were armed groups patrolling the Chaz, or the CHOP, whatever they end up calling it.
And they even killed some kids, some teenagers who were just joyriding, pumping 300 rounds into this vehicle, thinking it was, I guess, white supremacists staging an attack, because people are paranoid and delusional.
So, my friends, Civil War is the discussion.
And everybody imagine some movie-like scenario, because they don't know what history really is.
Let me explain something to you.
I was on the ground during the revolution, the second revolution, in Egypt.
I was in Egypt during the second revolution.
And it was only a few thousand people in Tahrir Square protesting.
I mean several thousand, I'm not saying it was small or anything.
But everybody believes that in order for something to happen, there's got to be, like I mentioned in the previous segment, Anderson Cooper going on TV and saying, ladies and gentlemen, This country is in civil war.
That's not gonna happen!
What's gonna happen is, a president's gonna try to arrest a general.
Hey!
That already happened.
I think they actually did arrest Flynn.
Tried to put him in prison.
So again, off the macro stuff, down to the micro stuff.
On the ground, we have something really, really interesting.
They're calling it the Red House Autonomous Zone, or the RAS.
Okay.
This is interesting.
Because I don't completely disagree with the leftists here staging this revolt, this protest.
Now, I do agree with the streets of rage.
As The Sun calls it, Antifa protesters attack cop cars as they set up New Portland Autonomous Zone to block black families' eviction.
It's a black and indigenous family that lives in this house.
They've been there since the 1950s.
They owned the house.
But they took out a title loan, it's my understanding, on the house, or a mortgage on the house, meaning I went to the bank and said, we've been here for a really long time.
We need money because we're falling on hard times.
We want to put, you know, our house up as collateral, get a loan.
It's basically how it works.
That's my understanding.
It may have just been like a remortgage.
So they got equity out of the house, but they have to pay that back to the bank.
They use that to live off of.
Well, now they can't pay the bills back.
But normally, I would be willing to entertain serious questions about responsibility and the decisions you make.
I'll put it this way.
If the far left shows up to someone's house, who's being evicted, because that person couldn't pay their bills back even though they took out a loan, and they knew they're taking out a loan, and, you know, they're- look.
The person who bought the home... Let's slow down, actually.
You need money and you have a house.
You go to the bank.
The bank says, okay.
The bank gives you money.
That bank is now losing that money because they're not paying back the loan, and the bank says, we need to make up some of our losses.
Now, the bank can survive if they don't get back one house, but the bank won't survive and the system won't function if everybody refuses to pay.
So, they enforce this action.
It goes to foreclosure.
A man saw the foreclosure and bought the house.
The banks trying to make their money back say, okay, this guy's now offering to sell the house back to the family at cost.
And this is really cool, actually.
The left has actually fundraised just about enough to buy the family's house.
That's actually kind of awesome.
Why couldn't they just do that in the first place?
Why do you need to be fighting with cops and attacking cars?
Well, let me tell you something.
I actually am not going to completely rag on Antifa this time around.
While I don't agree with the far left, and like I said, in any normal circumstance, I'd be like, dude, if you take out a loan and you falter and you can't find a solution, evictions happen.
I don't like the idea of booting people out of their homes so somebody can make an investment.
But it's an imperfect system, and there are real challenges here.
I generally am against outright evictions, and I personally won't go anywhere near foreclosed properties.
I won't rent, I won't buy, I don't have anything to do with it.
Not that I'm like a big buyer of properties anyway.
But let me tell you, there's one big reason here, and I think y'all will agree with me.
You know why this family can't pay back their bills?
COVID lockdowns from these Democratic governors.
Who's able to make money and pay their bills?
It's been a year.
Of course people can't pay their bills.
Now, I don't know if that's exactly why they're not paying their mortgage, but typically it's like, I don't know, three or four months, six months maybe.
You'll go to foreclosure relatively quickly if you're not paying your mortgage back.
It's been almost a year.
I am not surprised this family is struggling to pay back the mortgage when the governors of all of these states have taken away our ability to go out and work over dubious science.
And the police have been enforcing the draconian lockdowns, causing mass suffering and stripping away the rights of individuals.
So now we have a bunch of cops trying to come in and evict someone from their home during a pandemic when the government has shut everything down.
And you know what I say?
I say, oh, hell no!
Nah, sorry.
Like I mentioned, I may be a centrist, you know, enlightened centrist, whatever, when it comes to evictions in normal circumstance.
Again, I'm not a big fan of booting poor people out of their homes, but we got to figure out a solution to this.
There's nonprofits.
I worked, I actually worked for a non-profit helping the homeless, okay?
So this is something that matters to me.
I don't like the idea of Antifa fighting cops.
I really don't like autonomous zones because you see people die, like in Seattle.
But we've got an actual issue here, so I'll put it this way.
I actually, for the most part, disagree with what they're doing.
Setting up barriers and, you know, throwing bricks at cops and attacking cop cars.
Not a fan.
They've occupied much more than just this house.
Check it out.
Here's a photo from Andy Ngo.
He tweets.
The Antifa Red House autonomous zone continues to grow as it is now in its fourth day.
Militants continue to build new border checkpoints further and further out to buffer the area.
The zone is now three blocks long.
This is why I say I am mostly in disagreement.
I think that people are exploiting the eviction to take territory for an autonomous zone.
I don't think they're actually here to defend this family.
You know why?
According to the actual news from Oregon Live, they've actually raised $250,000 to buy the home back in a GoFundMe titled Save the Kinney Family Home.
And this, in my opinion, one of the coolest things ever.
This is fantastic.
So to all of those on the left, Who have fundraised this money to buy the house to defend this family, especially during the pandemic.
You guys rock, and you have my utmost respect.
To those who are expanding this autonomous zone well beyond the confines of this house after they've already raised the money, I think is absolutely ridiculous and wrong.
And that's where I will clash with the left on this issue.
Another really important question gets raised, however, with what Antifa is doing, and I gotta say, I love this question in response to Andy Ngo.
From Desiree Thinking, she says, Alright.
I'm still curious about the affected property owners in these cases.
Why Antifa wants its own property rights to be respected?
And if this is not stolen land in conquest, does the moral narrative behind the action
change what is occurring?
Because that's really easy to justify.
All right.
On that, let me slow down.
This house is owned by the bank, not by the people who live there.
They effectively sold it when they accepted money from the bank as a loan with the house's collateral.
The house doesn't belong to them.
What Antifa is doing by surrounding it and kicking out the authorities is effectively colonizing this land.
They're raising money to buy property.
Most of these people would argue, I mean, not all of them, that private property doesn't exist.
Some of them would argue a home is personal property, while others would argue, no, you can't own land.
All right, you figure it out, socialists.
But here's what I find just absolutely fascinating.
The leftists fighting for land that doesn't belong to them, and then you can see they're now surrounding other homes that have nothing to do with this.
Raising money for these people who are going to lose their home is awesome.
I love it.
We can't do it for everybody because resources are finite, but it's really cool that this family is going through hard times.
I blame these feckless governors in these democrat states for the ridiculous COVID lockdowns, which are, again, not based on science.
Part of the responsibility falls on those who keep voting for these people.
Well, here's what you get.
You know, I'm actually impressed with the strength of this autonomous zone.
It's actually much stronger than the one in Chaz.
But again, this to me doesn't seem like they're actually trying to help people.
I think there are some people on the left who have actually fought really hard to help this family avoid eviction.
There have been anti-eviction activists who have raised money in the past and done great jobs of helping people keep their homes.
I love that.
Again, I used to be a director at a homeless shelter, And if I could get people to fundraise to protect the homes of individuals and prevent people from becoming homeless, totally on board for it.
In fact, I think it'd be really cool to start a non-profit foundation that seeks to cover the mortgage bills of some people to keep the bank from foreclosing to make sure we don't make more homeless people.
Especially when it's down to hard times for an individual.
This story hits two important points.
For one, sometimes people fall on hard times, and it's messed up that I think we make a homeless family because of it, especially when they've been here since the 50s.
I can respect the fact that, you know, like I said, they effectively sold the property with this loan, assuming they couldn't pay it back.
But also, during the pandemic, that's a line that I absolutely reject.
If the governor of the states wants to enact these rules, you cannot boot people from their homes.
I know, it's tough.
So, one of the big challenges we've had throughout the pandemic is landlords.
And the left's saying, landlord isn't a job, they're leeches.
And I'm like, listen, if you don't pay your rent, how do they pay for the building managers, for maintenance, how do you pay their taxes, pay the water bill?
It's not easy.
Evictions, however, I think, are a disaster.
It is a powder keg ready to blow.
People are being told they can't work, and everything they own is being stripped away from them.
When I see this, I tell you, rock and a hard place.
Rock and a hard place.
I do not like Antifa throwing bricks at cop cars and taking territory, and like I said, look at this, they're expanding well beyond what they need to to practice home.
I also don't like the idea that this great reset is stripping away what everyone owns.
See, this is where it gets interesting.
This is where the populace, I think, might actually find some agreement.
You take a look at what that lady said at Pineapple Hill in Los Angeles.
Remember this viral video?
She comes out.
She's got a restaurant.
She's got an outdoor dining area.
Governor Gavin Newsom in California says, too bad you can't be open.
Right next to it, 50 feet away, Hollywood Film Production Company sets up the exact same thing.
Gazebo tents, picnic benches.
That is okay.
The woman said, everything I own is being taken from me.
And I say, I say, F that!
That's messed up.
The Great Reset, the World Economic Forum, put out this video saying, in 2030, you will own nothing, and you will be happy.
This, what we are seeing with the eviction of this family, in my opinion, overlaps with the COVID lockdown destroying people's lives, taking away their ability to support themselves, and then the banks come in, and the government comes in, and the private corporations come in, and they take what you own.
I say no.
I'll point out the hypocrisy of Antifa defending private property.
But hey, you know, there's big picture and there's little picture.
There's macro level, there's micro level.
I'll put it this way.
When someone does something good, I will praise them for it.
When someone does something bad, I will criticize them for it.
And here, we got a perfect storm.
Surrounding this three-block radius and grabbing more and more autonomous-owned territory is exploiting those people who are risking losing their home.
That is bad.
And that should be condemned.
Totally.
But raising money through a fundraiser to buy the home, to stave off the extraction of value from the poor and the working class in this country?
Epic.
Absolutely epic.
This GoFundMe, and I'm not a big fan of GoFundMe because they're super hyper-partisan, but hey man, you raised $268,000 by launching this?
And they say, in the midst of a deadly global pandemic, while most of the state was ablaze in air-filled toxic smoke, the Kinney family was forcibly removed from their fourth-generation home.
In the morning of September 9, 2020, Multnomah County sheriffs bashed open the Kinney family door at gunpoint, armed with assault rifles.
They barked orders for the family to pack up their belongings and move within 30 minutes.
The Kinneys were given no prior legal notice, as their case was still in litigation with a higher court.
Multnomah County Judge Judith H. Matazzaro authorized eviction in direct violation of the state and federal eviction moratoriums.
The government's in the wrong on this one, as far as I'm concerned.
I could even stop here and say, how about we don't evict people during a mandatory lockdown?
First and foremost, how about we end the mandatory lockdowns?
That's where all this is stemming from.
So I'll tell you what the problem... We got another problem here.
Check it out.
The left is saying, don't evict people and pay them a stimulus.
That's not a solution to the problem.
But many of them are scared of COVID.
Well, these activists certainly aren't.
They're, well, I mean, they're wearing masks, sure, but they really don't care about COVID.
They're not worried about it.
And besides, survival rate for people under 70 is 99.9%, yet they don't care.
So why lock everything down then?
The real answer is, get everything back open, give everybody a forgiveness period to get back on track to pay their bills, and stop bashing doors open and evicting people.
Because it's your fault.
Look, I was in favor of the first stimulus package because I thought we were in an emergency.
We can now see that much of that money went to major corporations and the lockdown was mostly a big mistake.
I actually think that what we're seeing right now is the exploitation by Democrats and their political allies to essentially rob from the poor to give to the rich.
I think they're exploiting this crisis in every way imaginable to strip ownership from people like we saw with the World Economic Forum saying it.
All these major corporations are on board with this great reset.
I do not and will never support anybody who is acting at the behest of massive multinational corporations to steal from the working class of this country, from the people.
This is a country of, by, and for the people.
Yet, we are continually being suppressed and oppressed by not just corporations, but their government cronies as well.
I wonder, with Joe Biden becoming president, if we will actually see some populist unity.
Now, I bring this up in the context of civil war earlier on because this is people outright defying the state and the corporations.
And at this point, like I said, you know what?
You cops want sympathy from me as you're trying to enforce an eviction?
I'm not, uh, I'm not all that interested in giving support to people who would enforce a draconian edict.
So these cops, when they were being besieged for a hundred days, I'll criticize Antifa because they were attacking a federal courthouse, but you get these cops who are going to say it's unconstitutional to lock you- they're oath breakers.
They're oath breakers.
They've broken their oath to the Constitution.
I'm not saying the autonomous zone is good.
I'm saying they've actually crossed the line as well.
But we are in trying times.
But I wonder if Joe Biden could actually unify the populists in this country.
Because I can only imagine at a certain point, you know, I'm surprised Antifa isn't defending more of these Trump-supporting businesses who are defying the lockdowns.
It's weird tribalism.
But let me show you where we're at so far.
In this tweet we have from Black Lives Matter.
They tweeted, New profile pic.
We won, they say.
Black Lives Matter.
Oh, did they?
They've now tweeted, The night of their victory, we sent Joe Biden and Kamala Harris a letter requesting a meeting.
It has now been 32 days, and we have yet to receive a response.
To set up a meeting with civil rights leaders without BLM is unacceptable.
You didn't win.
They used you.
Recently, there was a viral hashtag, Stop the Left Purge.
Yep.
Because on Twitter, several high-profile leftist accounts were instantly deleted without notice.
Welcome to the fight, I say, to these people who kept saying, but my private corporation.
Welcome to the fight.
Because we have been screaming, it's only a matter of time before they come for you.
They used you.
They manipulated you.
To give Joe Biden power.
To enforce this great reset, stripping away of rights of these individuals.
I don't know.
Maybe these leftists actually like it.
It's a really confusing time to see the far left defending property rights, but sure.
I guess it's better than the property rights of a big bang, the property rights of an individual.
Well, now we're learning exactly what the results are.
On November 8th, the Black Lives Matter official Twitter account said, we won.
And 30 Tuesdays later, they said, we are being ignored.
They used you to gain power.
Everybody hates Joe Biden.
He didn't win because people like him.
If anything, he won because people don't like Trump.
Or the media, I suppose.
Depending on what your opinion is on the ongoing litigation, for sure, of course.
I'm just saying, in any circumstance, whatever the reason, Joe Biden didn't win for being popular.
And that means that he is now being elected, and nobody likes him.
And you know what that leads to?
It leads to revolution.
I'll give you a real world example.
I mentioned earlier I was in Egypt during the revolution.
The second revolution.
That was the removal of Morsi.
First you had, I believe it was Mubarak, who had been in for decades.
There was a revolt.
They removed him.
They decided to hold an election.
It was a first-past-the-post election.
One person, one vote.
You know how that works.
And a lot of people say it's not the best system.
You ended up, this is my understanding, when I was there, this is what I was told.
You ended up with a bunch of different political parties.
Now, 8 out of 10 agreed with each other on almost everything, but little things they didn't.
The Muslim Brotherhood was the biggest individual voting bloc, and with less than 20% of the vote, or just around, they won the presidency.
And that went to Morsi, who was an Islamist.
He was, you know, Muslim Brotherhood.
Nobody liked him, so they revolted again.
This time, everybody banded together against the Muslim Brotherhood, and you got the second revolution just one year later.
I was there.
I watched it happen.
And many people thought it didn't matter or it wouldn't happen, but it was a revolution that changed the government.
The military stepped in and took over, and then started executing supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it was horrifying.
Because the Muslim Brother was protesting and destabilizing the country.
Because they were the largest minority group, but the one odd person out.
So the government decided, it's easier to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood, hold an election, and then everyone kind of passively agrees, fine, I guess this person's okay.
The military basically took over.
I watched it happen.
And a lot of people went out with their lives as if it never happened.
Just a few blocks away from the revolution in Tahrir Square, there was a McDonald's.
And inside, people were having burgers and watching football.
You know, European football.
Soccer, right?
And down the street was a revolution.
I went to Heliopolis.
I went to the mall.
Bought a cell phone.
Had some kebab.
It was fantastic.
While the revolution was happening.
And there are people in this country who think there is no revolution.
It's not happening.
This is just, you know, political squabbles.
44 states are disputing who the president is.
It's remarkable, isn't it?
And on the ground we have autonomous zones, clashes with police, and a rejection of federal authority.
Well, we're waiting ever so patiently for the Supreme Court to issue their ruling, and it may come at any moment, so stick around.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on my other YouTube channel.
Yes, it is different.
A lot of people don't get this, but I'll be trying to give it very carefully.
If you type in youtube.com forward slash timcast, It will bring you to a different YouTube channel from the one you're watching right now.
