S550 - Biden May ALREADY Be Transferring Presidency To Kamala Harris As Even Democrats Notice Outsized Role
Biden May ALREADY Be Transferring Presidency To Kamala Harris As Even Democrats Notice Outsized Role. Media outlets like Washington Post point out that Kamala Harris is doing way more than a Vice President normally does and friends of Kamala have said "nothing about [her] is number2"This has many believing that Joe Biden either does not plan to have a second term and will pass on the work to Kamala or that he may not even finish his first term at all.Republicans and Democrats have long questioned how long Joe Biden will last and many question if Donald Trump runs in 2024 will Kamala have what it takes to win.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Concerns that Joe Biden may already be transferring presidential powers to Kamala Harris pop up in media, as even members of the media and Democrats notice Kamala Harris has a very outsized role in the Biden administration, speaking with many world leaders, and advising Biden on foreign policy in a way most vice presidents don't.
Now, this could just be media drama, but perhaps they're already preparing to swap out Biden for Kamala Harris.
Our next story.
The trial of Derek Chauvin in Minnesota is set to begin, and already thousands of protesters are marching through the streets, and many believe Chauvin will be found not guilty.
He may not actually get convicted of second-degree murder, but maybe he will at least get convicted of manslaughter.
And our last story, the true threat to American democracy, as they claim, is not QAnon, but in fact, Blue Anon.
While it's fair to criticize those who follow the QAnon conspiracy, and it's fair to say that many of these beliefs are completely unhinged, Blue Anon conspiracy theorists have support of the mainstream press and are never refuted.
This leads many people to wild beliefs and dangerous actions.
Let's get into the first story.
During the campaign of now President Joe Biden, many people on the left and the right questioned whether or not Joe Biden would run for a second term if he ended up winning a first term.
The dude was like 77 years old, which means he'd be about 81 when running for re-election.
That would mean he'd be the oldest president to ever get elected and then again be the oldest president to ever get re-elected.
I know it's not really that complicated because he ages and he's running.
But many conservatives wondered if you would even make it the first term to the end.
And then beyond that, many people questioned if they were just going to use the 25th Amendment to get Joe Biden out and put Kamala Harris in.
Recently, Matt Gaetz appeared on Fox News, and he asked this question.
He's wondering if a transition from Biden to Harris is already underway.
Now, immediately, you'll hear many people on the left saying, that's just Matt Gaetz.
He's a right-winger.
That's a right-wing talking point.
But we do have many stories from mainstream publications that have created this perception.
The Washington Post saying that Kamala Harris is taking an outsized role in the Biden administration.
The New York Post reporting that Kamala Harris is answering phone calls or speaking with world leaders on behalf of Joe Biden.
And more importantly, Joe Biden has not yet given a press conference.
He has not held an address to the joint sessions of Congress, a State of the Union address.
You'd have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a president who waited this long to give an address to a joint session of Congress.
Now, none of this is definitive.
Joe Biden may just be giving Kamala more work because Joe Biden is an old man.
It doesn't necessarily mean he is transitioning already, but the question is being raised.
So I thought, let's take a look at what Matt Gaetz is saying and take a look at these stories that are coming out talking about whether or not Joe Biden is already giving up.
I think there is a fair point to be made because when Nancy Pelosi introduced this idea of a 25th Amendment panel that would determine the mental abilities of a president and then decide whether or not they should remove the president, of course you'd still need the vice president, She said it was not about Donald Trump.
Many people thought she was simply trying to remove Donald Trump as a last-ditch effort just before an election.
Some people thought the idea was, if Trump wins re-election, she will then use this new panel.
But many people speculated.
Nah, this is for Joe Biden.
They didn't want Joe Biden to win, they wanted Kamala Harris to win.
But as you may remember, Tulsi Gabbard dropped that nuke during the debates, which sank Kamala Harris.
Their next plan?
I guess...
Joe Biden with VP Harris.
And then Biden steps down.
And then here's my favorite conspiracy.
Kamala Harris becomes president and then chooses Hillary Clinton as her vice president.
And then Kamala resigns.
I'm kidding.
I really doubt that's going to happen.
And to be completely fair, I'm not entirely convinced Joe Biden is giving up power to Kamala Harris right now because he does not need to.
He can simply give her the authority without doing an official transition, and that may be the actual circumstance we're facing.
Maybe it's not a literal transition.
It's a... It's not on paper.
It's an informal one.
Well, let's see exactly what Matt Gaetz is thinking.
Before we do, however, actually, we'll just... Well, before we do, go to TimCast.com, sign up and become a member.
We have a bunch of exclusive content.
I don't have the website pulled up right now, that's why I'm just reading it to you.
But go to TimCast.com, sign up, become a member, help support my work.
Let's just read the news.
Town Hall reports Matt Gaetz wonders if a transition from Biden to Harris is already underway from Town Hall.
They say on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, host Maria Barromo and Florida GOP rep Matt Gaetz made some keen observations about the Biden administration that has some people questioning who's really in charge over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Bartiromo asked the Florida Republican whether a transition may be already underway given President Biden's avoidance of the press while Vice President Kamala Harris meets with international leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and French President Emmanuel Macron.
What is going on, Bartiromo asked?
Are we getting ready for some kind of transition?
You have to wonder whether or not the transition to Harris has already begun, says Matt Gaetz.
Joe Biden's had more nap time than he's had questions from reporters.
And you're right.
While the Middle Kingdom grows more ambitious in their goals, we are still toiling away in the Middle East.
Joe Biden has had more attacks on Syria than he's had press conferences.
That's a really interesting point brought up by Matt Gaetz, because it's true, Joe Biden hasn't had any press conferences, and he did have a military strike on Syria, but it's actually quite simple.
Joe Biden doesn't have to do anything to engage in a military strike on Syria.
He need only sit in a room, and then someone says, here's what we're gonna do, and he goes, sure, I guess.
There's no work involved.
It's literally 10 seconds of, you got it, as opposed to a press conference, which could be, what, a half an hour to an hour of long conversation and questions.
That's a lot of work for Joe Biden, who's a very old man.
They say, Gates also questioned whether progressive voters are having buyer's remorse when it comes to the new president.
Quote, Is this what you wanted?
A warmonger president like Joe Biden?
When Donald Trump did so much to bring peace to the world and to actually confront the real threat, China?
Not to be trying to build democracies out of blood and sand and Arab militias in some desert far away?
Asked Gates.
Well listen, Donald Trump is no saint when it comes to the Middle East.
There are no new wars, but he did ramp up drone strikes.
He did change the reporting mechanism, so we don't know exactly how many drone strikes there are.
But I think the no new wars thing was good.
I think the Abraham Accords were good.
Four historic peace agreements.
Well, I think it's three, but there's another, there's a fourth one.
He also tried to withdraw our troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
Something, one thing that many, many Americans agree on, except for the establishment.
They seem to be very much invested in us Going to war and blowing things up.
So, of course, they didn't like Donald Trump.
Oh, well, I should say, whether or not they'll actually criticize Joe Biden remains to be seen, but progressives absolutely are.
Now, I see a lot of conservatives ragging on progressives saying, haha, you voted for this, but you need to understand, they still hate Donald Trump more than they hate Joe Biden.
They've always hated Joe Biden.
We know they hate Joe Biden.
I think it's silly to act like leftist populists who wanted Bernie Sanders want Joe Biden to be doing any of this.
They voted for him because they hated Trump.
If Donald Trump was president, they would still not be happy.
So this idea that they have buyer's remorse is just wrong.
They would happily vote for Biden again, knowing exactly what he is, and therein lies the problem.
I take a look at what Donald Trump did, and I say, oh yeah, a lot of bad stuff.
A lot of bad stuff I don't like.
But I will take the bull in the China shop over the mobster who's, you know, illegally dealing in the China shop.
Joe Biden is part of the establishment.
They are corrupt and they are crooked.
Donald Trump, in many ways, as I've said this before, I believe has done crooked things.
He's like the typical American capitalist kind of unethical businessman, in my opinion.
But he did some things that I did like and did agree with, but more importantly, he was just an outsider.
My whole attitude was, don't let the establishment back in the house to lock the doors.
Let Trump run around for a few more years and then get a real, you know, moderate populist or whatever you'd want to vote for in office.
Instead, we get Biden Inc.
enriching his family and what?
Transferring power to Kamala because he's not really running anyway?
The whole thing seems like some kind of facade.
You may have seen this viral video recently where Joe Biden was was speaking to House members, Democratic House members, and he said, I'll take questions now.
And then the camera feed shuts off.
The response we got from journalists was, oh, listen, you need to understand he was taking questions off camera.
He wasn't live streaming them.
And I'm like, why?
Why won't the man answer questions publicly?
He's done some, let's be real.
I'm not trying to act like it's the end of the world.
He answered one question about COVID saying no return to normal for a year.
But why is it that when it comes to a press conference and people asking questions, he turns the camera off?
Is it because he doesn't have the answers?
Is it because he doesn't have the mental acuity at this point in his life to accurately respond to these questions and concerns?
Perhaps.
They're going to say, Biden is the first president in 40 years not to hold a press conference at this point in his administration.
Biden is set to deliver his first address before a joint session of Congress near the end of March, and it's been reported that Biden is expected to hold a full press conference in the coming weeks, but we'll believe it when we see it.
It's not unprecedented.
Jimmy Carter didn't have his first joint, you know, address to a joint session of Congress until April 18th or 20th, depending on I have the Carter Library said it was the 20th, but then other news reports at the 18th.
A lot of people probably don't want to entertain the idea.
They don't want to believe it.
And I'm sure there are many people on the left who are saying, what a stupid segment for Tim to even question.
Joe Biden is the president.
Yes, I know.
Joe Biden is the president.
Donald Trump is not the president.
There's no secret ceremony.
There's no new republic.
There's no grand conspiracy.
Joe Biden is the president.
Kamala Harris is the vice president.
How long will Biden last?
And aside from that, is Joe Biden giving Kamala Harris an oversized role, which effectively signals he already transitioned much of that power?
Here's a story from the Washington Post.
Check this out.
The Daily 202, just from yesterday.
I'm sorry, this is from earlier today.
Kamala Harris is playing an unusually large role in shaping Biden's foreign policy.
Actually, it's from last night.
I was wrong again.
Hey, how about that?
They say, just six weeks since taking office, Vice President Harris is playing an integral role in President Biden's foreign policy, putting her personal stamp on behind-the-scenes debates and on the world stage as she works to advance Biden's diplomatic agenda.
I love it.
What?
Bombing Syria?
Harris has spoken independently of Biden to at least six world leaders, the White House says, an unusually large number for a new vice president.
Joined his virtual White House summit with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and given remarks at the State Department, they say.
She was also a vocal participant in deliberations over how to respond to Iran-backed militia attacks on U.S.
forces in Iraq, as well as whether to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, White House aides said.
She was part of a small group that met twice with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and talked through the options, said senior White House official.
She really pressed on the question of how to try to achieve some measure of deterrence while managing escalation.
Harris, quote, was there in the situation room for the final decision, and she crystallized the case for taking action, said the official speaking anonymously to describe private national security discussions.
It's too early to say whether the president will formally entrust Harris with a specific national security portfolio the way Obama handed Biden Iraq, Ukraine, and relations with Turkey after a 2016 coup attempt there.
But keep in mind, that was way later in Obama's presidency.
They say, but the skills, knowledge, and relationships she is building as vice president could serve her well if Biden, at 78, the oldest person ever to take the oath, bows out after one term, leaving the former California senator his designated heir.
And there it is, my friends!
The Washington Post is saying it to our faces!
So no, I'll tell you what's going to happen.
People are going to hear Matt Gaetz say this, and they're going to say the right wing is making this up.
It's Washington Post.
The Washington Post is saying this.
Joe Biden at 78 may bow out after one term.
What about before that?
Is it possible?
I mean, it is possible that Joe Biden knows at any moment he's well past... Look, and I mean this with all due respect.
Joe Biden is older than the average life expectancy for a male of his generation.
He's two years past the average life expectancy.
I believe it's actually responsible for him to be designating Kamala Harris in this way.
The bigger issue is that we all knew it.
We knew Joe Biden was not fit to be president.
We should not be put in a position as a country where our president has to be giving up powers to the vice president because he knows, they know, and we all know he's just too old.
Stop giving me this line about speech impediments.
He's just an old man.
I'm fine with it.
I get it.
People voted for him because they did not like Donald Trump.
Great.
Now we got a president who needs help.
He's giving it to Kamala Harris.
The problem?
Who voted for Kamala?
I still think Kamala could have won, and when you look at the numbers, because Joe Biden, nobody really liked him anyway.
But I gotta be honest.
I think it's exactly this.
Biden represented Obama-era nostalgia.
Kamala Harris could have won, but I wouldn't personally bet on it.
I mean, maybe.
Coin toss?
I don't know.
Joe Biden, I did not expect to win for a variety of reasons, especially all throughout the last year where I thought Trump would make bold moves which would contribute to a massive landslide.
It never happened.
Trump didn't do the things I thought he was going to do.
He didn't… he just didn't do it.
He did some things, don't get me wrong, but certainly not enough.
I will say, I probably misread the room.
Donald Trump got more votes than any sitting president ever, but what I didn't anticipate would be all of the people who absolutely hated him, no matter what.
I assumed a lot of people were just sick and tired of it and would just probably ignore what was going on.
But I suppose with COVID, keep in mind Donald Trump still got 74.2 million votes.
Amazing.
Amid an economic downturn, amid all of the obnoxious and stupid things Trump did, he still gained like 12 million more votes than last time?
That's absolutely crazy.
Now check it out.
Washington Post says, when it comes to foreign policy, modern vice presidents can play a wide variety of roles.
All of them advise the president they serve, but they can also go on specific missions, as Dick Cheney did with trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in President George W. Bush's final two years.
Or they can manage specific diplomatic relationships, as Biden did when he became the point person for contacts with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
After the coup attempt against him.
Though there are many people who question whether there was actually a coup attempt.
Let me point something out to everybody, might be a little too young.
The older folks, you probably already know this.
The trope during the Bush years was that Dick Cheney was actually the one in charge.
In fact, on American Dad, oh I know, the left is just outraged at my pop culture references.
American Dad by Seth MacFarlane was originally a show about a CIA dad who was very right-wing and patriotic and very, you know, pro-Bush.
Actually, I think this might have been, uh, Family Guy.
One of the other shows.
I think it may be American Dead.
George W. Bush is in heaven, and, uh, I can't remember exactly what the joke is, but he gets a phone call.
Oh, I'm sorry, God gets a phone call, and it's from Dick Cheney.
So basically, George W. Bush, like, asks God what to do, and then God tells him, but then God's like, oh, my phone's ringing, gotta go, and then he's like, Mr. Cheney.
The joke being that Dick Cheney was the actual president, and George W. Bush was just the marketable face.
Everybody remembers Bush Senior.
There was leadership there.
It was the Reagan years.
Here comes George W. Bush, and Bush is a brand.
And it worked.
Barely, to be completely honest.
Gore almost won, and then you had the Florida issue, and the Supreme Court said, nah, and then it went to George W. Bush.
But many people were acting as though Dick Cheney was the guy who was actually in charge.
Am I going to be shocked now if Kamala Harris is the one who's actually in charge?
No, not in the least bit.
We knew it before he got elected, we know it now, and we know what happens in previous administrations.
They say, Harris is committed to Biden's priorities.
he falls to a vice president depends on the priorities of the person sitting behind the
resolute desk in the Oval Office, as well as global circumstances frequently beyond
their control, senior White House aides emphasized.
They say Harris is committed to Biden's priorities.
I'll tell you what Biden's priorities are, in my opinion.
Little work is possible.
Calling a lid, doing no press conferences.
He'll do what he has to when he has to, but I tell you this.
In my opinion, Joe Biden's probably sitting in a chair, in the sun, with a little blanket on his lap, and they're just like, Joe, we're gonna do our thing.
And he goes, go for it.
Don't worry about it.
Just keep me in the loop so that I can answer, you know.
Why doesn't Joe Biden answer questions?
Because he probably isn't the one signing off on all these documents in terms of what's in them.
So let me clarify.
If someone had Joe Biden a document that says, missile strike in Syria, he goes, you got it, just keep me in the loop, whatever.
Kamala Harris is the one who's making the decisions and talking about it, and Joe Biden's just like, you got it, sure.
What would happen if you took a person like that, and had them, and they held a press conference?
You'd hear someone say, on page, you know, four of the document that got released, your executive order, you said this, he'd be like, I did?
I'd imagine that when it comes to Obama and Bush and many other people, you'd actually, you know, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
They are still looking at the documents, skimming through them, a lot of work, you can see how they age when they do it.
Biden, I think, no.
I think no.
They're going to say Kamala Harris keeps a busy schedule of regular meetings or meals
with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Austin and other foreign policy and national security
officials.
It seems very obvious that when you look at this, she's actually the one in charge.
Is it a legit transition?
No.
The only reason I think we're calling it a transition is because Joe Biden is 78, and we're not confident he's gonna last forever.
Whereas with George W. Bush, he wasn't that old, so even though Cheney may have been the one dictating a lot of the policy...
It is what it is, right?
Well, we have this other article from ABC that says, Kamala Harris slowly starts to carve out a role beyond making sure Joe Biden is a success.
Look at this.
Nothing about Kamala Harris is number two, a longtime friend said.
This is from a couple of weeks ago, February 17th.
So where did Matt Gaetz get this idea?
They're going to tell you a right-wing talking point, but the man did not make it up himself.
This has been talked about for some time.
The people around Kamala Harris is saying she is not number two.
So what does that mean?
What is Biden actually doing?
Well, I think it's fairly obvious that she is probably, in my opinion, preparing to take over in some capacity.
Or literally has taken over.
But I want to make sure I'm fair and I want to point out a few things in favor of Joe Biden as to why we're not hearing from him more and play devil's advocate a little bit.
NBC News reports Biden address to Congress could be pushed back for COVID relief promotion.
Details about when and how the major speech will be done are still being worked out.
I got to say, I do find it very interesting that we've gone this far.
And we have not seen a speech from Joe Biden or even a press conference.
Like I said, you gotta go back to 1977.
Jimmy Carter.
I understand there's a lot of reasons.
We can point them out.
Okay, COVID relief.
Fine.
How about this one?
Texas congressman confirms extremist threats against Congress for Biden's State of the Union address.
We're going to have to open the Capitol back up, but as a former federal prosecutor, it has to be threat-based, said U.S.
Rep.
Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas.
Could it be the reason they're not doing a joint session is that it would put the president, the vice president, and a joint session of Congress all in the same place?
And I'd imagine Supreme Court justices would be there, and they're probably paranoid.
I think they're paranoid over this, you know, threat we hear, this Blue Anon stuff, right?
You've got the mainstream media riling everybody up, claiming that militias are going to storm the Capitol, and I just don't think that's going to happen.
I mean, look, I'm not right all the time.
My predictions—I'm not a psychic.
But, you know, maybe there's a threat.
I just don't see it as this big.
Not to mention, when you have 5,000 National Guardsmen, do we really have to worry all that much?
So maybe the real issue is this.
They don't want to have the event because Joe Biden couldn't handle it.
They'll have it eventually when they think he can.
Maybe they won't.
Maybe they'll keep pushing it back, citing COVID or threats.
Or maybe the COVID and the threats are just the excuse to stop the speech from happening.
Like, I'm not saying one or the other.
I know.
Don't put the words in my mouth.
I'm just saying it could be one or the other.
It could be that they're saying they're worried and they got to keep the guard there because it maintains this threat presence.
And then as long as they do, Joe Biden can't do anything.
Look, I wish Joe Biden well.
I wish him health and security and safety.
And we heard from, you know, last year, NBC says, this is from 447 days ago, that he was healthy and vigorous for a 77-year-old.
He is in good health and nowhere near slowing down.
But I just really, really do not think that is the case.
Sorry.
I think it's more so the case that he's not, he's not, he may be healthy, right?
But when you get older, The decline happens faster and faster.
And it's sad.
I know a lot of people, if you've seen your parents or grandparents go through the stuff, you know that it's very different when you're in your 20s into your 30s and you start feeling the age hit you.
You turn 30 and you're like, I can't jump off buildings anymore like I used to when I was 17 skateboarding.
Or maybe you play football or soccer and you realize like things, it's not as easy as it used to be.
You start to feel it.
But you start to feel it, it's still not that much.
Maybe it's just me.
But I've been skateboarding for like 22 years or whatever.
And, is it 22 years now?
Like wow, that's crazy.
Maybe, maybe 21.
A lot of people say that when you get 30, all of a sudden it's harder to do everything.
I haven't really noticed that.
A little tiny bit.
But not really.
It's like I can still do everything I've always done, but I will admit I don't take the same risks that I used to.
But as you start to get older, you start to notice.
So forgive the skateboarding analogies, but it's my point of reference, my knowledge, right?
Tony Hawk.
Famous skateboarder.
You probably have heard of him.
He did this famous video where he was 50 years old and he was going to do one of the hardest tricks in skateboarding, the 900, and it was very difficult for him, and he was like, it's the last one I'll ever do.
Now I think he's like 53 or whatever, and he did a trick one step down, the last 720 he's ever done.
In only a few years, he went from being able to do one of the hardest tricks in skateboarding to struggling to do a trick he's done since he was a teenager.
As you get older, it happens faster and faster.
So maybe a year ago, they said Joe Biden was healthy and fit, but it's been a year, and now he's 78.
And as time goes on, he's just going to keep degrading.
On October 29th, before the election, we have this from abc.net.au, Australian News.
They said, if Joe Biden wins the U.S.
election, would he really serve only one term?
Here's what that would mean for him and Kamala Harris.
Then we have this one.
I believe this one is a much more... I'm sorry, this is around the same time.
How long will Biden last in office?
Maybe not so long.
An opinion piece from New Jersey's 101.5.
I think it's fair to say that we are looking at a president who doesn't have what it takes.
We have this story from the Daily Caller.
Biden will deliver first primetime national address to commemorate the anniversary of the pandemic.
So, look, I want to make sure I'm giving you as much context as possible.
And this is them saying Biden's going to give the speech.
Is it?
I believe it would be unfair to to ignore that there is COVID.
Democrats tend to be very scared of it.
And there were there were people storming the Capitol.
So maybe that's a legitimate reason.
The Daily Caller says White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced Monday morning that President Joe Biden will deliver his first primetime national address Thursday evening to commemorate one year of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
I got to stop.
Is this An address to a joint session of Congress, an actual State of the Union?
Or is he just going to be sitting at the Oval Office and read a prompter?
Perhaps that's all it is.
Psaki's announcement comes as Congress is preparing to send the American Rescue Plan to Biden's desk to be signed into law.
The House is expected to vote for final passage of the $1.9 trillion stimulus package as soon as Tuesday.
Quote, The president will deliver his first primetime address to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 shutdown on Thursday, Psaki told reporters, gathered at Monday's White House press briefing.
He will discuss the many sacrifices the American people have made over the last year.
And the grave loss communities and families across the country have suffered.
She added that Biden will look forward to highlighting the role of Americans will, I'm sorry, the role of Americans will play in beating the virus and moving the country toward getting back to normal.
They say the Biden administration has weathered transparency questions in recent days, the president has yet to schedule a date with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver his first joint session address to Congress, and has waited longer than any president in nearly a century to hold his first solo press conference.
Psaki reiterated at Monday's press briefing that Biden will host his first press conference by the end of March.
Let me tell y'all something.
I don't like Joe Biden.
I don't like Kamala Harris.
I don't.
If they do good things, I will praise them for it.
For the time being, I haven't seen it.
Sorry, that's just the case.
Donald Trump did some good things, and he did some bad things.
But the Democrats acted like whiny, petulant children, I mean the politicians, and many of the voters, over what Trump was or wasn't doing.
We got endless conspiracy, garbage, and nonsense, and I'm extremely critical of not giving the man an opportunity.
Criticize him when he does something wrong.
I'll say the same thing for Joe Biden.
I want to see him do well.
I want to see things that I like.
Recently, it was announced that Joe Biden called off a military strike out of fear that it could result in civilian deaths.
That is a good thing.
However, you may have noticed I retweeted even Hassan the Sun, a leftist, when he said, Americans are so used to war crimes they consider it a good thing when one doesn't happen.
That's a good point.
Joe Biden should just not bomb Syria.
So I'm not going to praise Joe Biden necessarily because he bombs Syria and then decides later maybe he won't do it again.
I criticized Donald Trump when he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, and I will praise them when they don't, when they engage in peace.
So to the extent that Joe Biden said I won't bomb, I'll say thank you for doing the right thing, because if you don't give someone credit when they do the right thing, they're only incentivized to do the wrong thing.
But I'll say it.
I will.
I see a lot of people ragging on Biden, and Jen Psaki specifically, and I just don't care for this man.
There's a meme going around where it's like, look how great Kayleigh McEnany's research binder was.
It's very neat and organized.
And I'm like, that's great!
I thought Kayleigh McEnany did a great job.
She was fantastic.
Jen Psaki, I don't believe is as good as Kayleigh McEnany, but that's no— I'm not trying to insult the woman.
I ultimately don't think it matters.
Who cares what the White House press corps It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.
You're not getting legitimate responses from these people.
Now, I think what people really liked about Kayleigh McEnany, for instance, was that she would smack down the press when they pushed their fake narrative.
Jen Psaki just says, I'll circle back.
But for the most part, I don't think it's the biggest thing in the world.
I think the bigger problem has always been the White House press corps.
So let me say this to all of those people who liked Trump, critical of Biden, be critical of Biden when he does bad, and praise him when he does good.
Period.
For everybody.
And if you want to point out you think he does mostly bad, by all means, please do so.
Please, please, please.
But keep your criticisms in focus when it comes to like Jen Psaki on the White House press corps who ask stupid garbage questions and tee up softballs to Jen Psaki when they're like, no, Joe Biden has got a dog recently and it's a rescue dog.
That's a great question.
Let's talk.
That's a waste of our time.
We need journalists who are going to ask legitimate hard questions.
And the problem is when the people would ask questions of Kayleigh McEnany, they'd be garbage questions.
Why won't Donald Trump denounce white supremacy?
Okay, shut up.
And now, we're not getting legitimate questions.
It's either, we hate Donald Trump, or we love Joe Biden.
Can you just ask something legitimate?
I know there are journalists who ask real questions, and Jen Psaki was put on the spot because apparently she was asking for the questions in advance.
Yikes.
Not that great of a job.
But here's the point.
Joe Biden may be handing over a ton of power to Kamala Harris.
It may be similar to what we saw with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
I was admittedly a bit young during those years, so I don't know too much about how that went down, but that was the general perception, at least among certain crowds.
Maybe it wasn't true.
But I'll tell you this.
I don't like the nonsense.
I hate Joe Biden for the sake of hating Joe Biden.
When Joe Biden announces he wants critical race theory back, I say, oppose this and criticize him.
When Joe Biden says, I'm not actually going to give you the checks I told you I was going to give you, you criticize him.
And it seems you've got populist left and populist right right now in agreement.
Biden is not doing all that great.
So how about this?
Instead of trying to just drag Biden for the sake of dragging Biden, figure out what the populist left is saying that they don't like about Joe Biden, find that common ground, because now congratulations, it seems like most of the country probably would not like what he's doing.
Strange, though, that the polls are saying he's got like a 68% approval rating on COVID and a 59% aggregate approval rating.
I'm sorry, man, even the people who voted for the guy aren't the biggest fans of him.
So if you're gonna convince me that Joe Biden is beloved by all, I'm gonna have to ask you, where are the progressives at?
They voted for the guy and they're still ragging on him.
You combine that with Trump supporters, sorry, I don't see 50%, but sure, whatever you say, pollsters.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, the live show, so come hang out.
We'll take your Super Chats and your questions and your comments, and we'll try and answer questions you may have pertaining to issues like these.
So again, go to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL at 8pm.
We will see you all there and thanks for hanging out.
Derek Chauvin is being charged with second degree murder and manslaughter and already thousands of people are protesting in the streets.
The city is setting up barricades and police forces apparently preparing for this moment for some time.
And everybody expects, no matter the outcome, there will be widespread riots throughout this city, Minneapolis.
The interesting thing about this city is that, well, they voted to defund their police, they panicked, they tried bringing the cops back.
Now they're doing some kind of multi-million dollar recruitment drive, desperate to get their cops back.
After they voted to get rid of the cops, people started complaining all over the city because crime and homicides were skyrocketing.
And now they're desperate.
But what's going to happen when these people come out to riot and the police force in this city has been crippled?
Man, if you think the riots last year were bad, I think we expect them to get very, very bad.
Probably substantially worse.
I mean, we've got to realize, when all of this went down with George Floyd, you had nationwide outrage because this man lost his life.
And there were certain narratives going around.
We'll get into all of this.
Now you have to realize that when Derek Chauvin is found not guilty, and he very likely will be, and I'll explain why, they are going to be ten times angry.
Listen.
The first riots were basically like, we demand these cops be arrested and charged!
And they said, okay!
And they did.
But even after they did, people still rioted, burned down buildings, destroyed lives.
What do you think's gonna happen when the courts are like, not guilty, free to go?
These people are going to erupt.
So it's entirely possible that Chavin is convicted for political reasons.
It's hard to know exactly how things will play out.
But based on the charges, second-degree murder and manslaughter, I believe publicly available information suggests he will not be found guilty.
Now, if you're on the left for some reason watching my content, Well, it's not me saying the dude didn't do anything wrong.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying, based on what's already been made publicly available, this guy's likely not going to get charged.
What you need to understand about second-degree murder is that he had to have the intent to kill.
For manslaughter, you need to prove that he did something, he was negligent, that caused harm resulting in death.
It's possible, in my opinion, that if this trial is played straight, Right?
Like, no politics involved, just here's the evidence, here's the jury.
Manslaughter is on the table.
Second degree murder is not.
They overcharged him.
Maybe third degree.
Manslaughter, maybe.
The problem?
The defense.
Released images from Minneapolis police training showing them using the knee that Chauvin did.
Now, you could argue, yeah, but just because you're trained to do it doesn't mean you do it for nine minutes.
But that still creates doubt.
You see, you don't have to prove that Chauvin did anything wrong.
You don't have to prove him innocent.
That's not how court works.
What's going to happen is, the defense is going to say, you need only a reasonable doubt.
And now here's where it gets really bad for the prosecutors.
There was an autopsy report that said... Well, actually, I want to make sure I read this because I don't want people claiming it was me.
From Business Insider, May 30th, 2020.
George Floyd autopsy shows no sign of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.
Attributes death to being restrained, his underlying health conditions, and any potential intoxicants in his system.
It is true that he had a lot in his system.
I believe he had a lot of fentanyl.
He also had, I believe, meth, among other drugs in his system.
Now, I believe the examiner did not conclude that death was the result solely of a fentanyl overdose.
Tucker Carlson recently did a segment where he said that's the real reason he died.
No, that's not what the autopsy examiner said, but When you go to a jury and you simply say, look at what was in his system as per the medical examiner, that's reasonable doubt.
So what can you expect?
You can expect mass unrest.
From ABC News, intimidation tactic.
Advocates on edge amid stepped-up security for Derek Chauvin trial in George Floyd's death.
They're apparently setting up big barricades.
They say fortified fencing, barbed wire, concrete barricades have gone up around the courthouse and police stations in Minneapolis in preparation for the landmark murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.
But what may seem like necessary preparations for unrest that could accompany the trial, in a city still recovering from violence and destruction that erupted there last summer after Floyd's death, to others is a frustrating sign that government officials don't understand the source of tensions between police and community in the first place, aggressive police posture.
Candace Montgomery, a local activist who helped organize protests over the killing of Floyd, said seeing taxpayer money allocated to ramping up security measures for a police department that she has supported defunding has been unsettling.
She says, quote, As the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota are calling for justice and healing and care, state officials have been responding in some ways by basically preparing to go to war with folks.
Interesting.
She says, so I do think it's meant to be an intimidation tactic.
Why are police setting up barricades?
Thousands of protesters march through Minneapolis to Courthouse, where ex-cop Derek Chauvin's trial over the death of George Floyd is set to begin.
They say Derek Chauvin's trial on charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter is slated to begin Monday.
The white ex-cop is accused of killing George Floyd when he knelt on the black man's neck in an arrest in May.
Minneapolis has been preparing for unrest for weeks, calling in up to 2,000 National Guard members.
My friends, if your city is not preparing for this, you will.
They will.
Regret it.
When the George Floyd riots happened, the George Floyd riots sweeped across this country, okay?
19 people died directly as a result, and there was another, I believe, 12 to 14 who died peripherally.
Meaning, like, there are people who actually died in the riots, and there are people who died as a result of the riots.
Giving the direct breakdown is more difficult.
Like, an example of someone who died directly in the riots is like they found one body in the burnt rubble of a building versus somebody who got like hit by a car while the riots were going on.
Things like that.
So a lot of people have died.
The original number they gave during the riots was like 31, but they lowered it because they didn't want the peripheral whatever.
It was bad for the press, I guess, so they changed the number.
Whatever you think is the appropriate number is up to you.
The point is, it's going to sweep the country.
And at a time when homicides are skyrocketing, I think I might have this pulled up here, check it out.
Homicides, you can see right here in the pandemic and during the George, just after the George Floyd riots, you can see that in the beginning of last year, homicides skyrocketed substantially.
So you can see I don't really know how to describe it to those that are listening on the podcast, but let me just say it is a hockey stick on a graph showing the line shooting straight up.
This is a report that says criminal homicides are deliberate and unlawful killings of another human being.
As with all offenses examined here, other than drug offenses, there is a clear cyclical pattern in homicide rates over time, with rates rising during the warmer summer months and falling during the winter.
That said, homicide rates in 2020 exceeded previous rates throughout the entire year.
And there was a structural break in the city average in June, indicating a large statistically significant increase in rates after adjusting for seasonality and the longer-term trend.
After this break, homicide rates increased sharply through July, then declined through the end of the year, though not to levels observed in the year prior, meaning they are still higher than they have been.
And this is what we can expect?
Derek Chauvin will likely not be convicted, in my opinion.
I could be wrong, but let me break it down for you.
Here's an article from May 30th, 2020.
And also stress, like I said, we already have skyrocketing homicide rates, crippled police forces, and protests have already started, and they haven't even issued a ruling.
They're doing jury selection.
It's literally just starting.
I'll tell you what, man.
These protests are... well, they're scary.
Because if the city fears the riots, then why would they choose justice?
If Derek Chauvin is guilty, then so be it.
If a jury trial finds him guilty, then so be it.
But is it possible they just say, if we let this guy go, they'll burn down the country?
So what do they do?
That's the scary thing about politics.
Let me read you the story from last year, and then I'll give you a breakdown of what's happening.
They say George Floyd was non-responsive for nearly three minutes before Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin took his knee off his neck, according to a criminal complaint released on Friday.
The complaint, filed by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, also cited a preliminary autopsy report showing that there were no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.
Instead, the report said that it was the combined effect of Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions, and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.
He died during an arrest, as we know.
The complaint said that police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.
That is fake news!
This is the scary thing, my friends.
The criminal complaint.
It's very strange to me, this whole thing.
I think the riots really did result in this.
So I'll say this to all the left-wing activists, congratulations.
Rioting and burning down the city really did work.
But they said, restraining the subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.
Okay.
Maybe.
Because Floyd was unresponsive for three minutes, and he didn't take his knee off his neck, you can argue manslaughter.
But what if I were to show you?
Minneapolis Police Department trained officers to use the neck restraint that killed George Floyd.
Here's what I've long said.
This is from July 8th, 2020.
The problem here is systemic.
That's right.
The police training, the system in place, they specifically say, they specifically Teach the officers to do certain things.
Now, for obvious reasons, I have to, you know, I can't show the image of the knee on the neck, but I can show you this.
In a tweet from Brandon Stahl, he says, a description of a proper neck restraint and how it looks in practice.
Let me pull up this tweet and I can show you this actual image.
This image is from actual Minneapolis police trainings.
Okay, here it is.
It says, okay, they are in handcuffs.
Now what?
As you can see, There's a man kneeling on a police officer's neck and for for for YouTube, I guess maybe you want to demonetize it.
Look, this is a police training.
No one is actually being harmed in any capacity.
Not that I think it ultimately matters.
They say.
Sudden cardiac arrest typically occurs immediately following a violent struggle.
Place the subject in the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia.
Once in handcuffs, get EMS on scene quickly to monitor and transport.
Sign a transport hold on these individuals.
Complete a CIC report.
As you can see in the image, they show the officers doing exactly what Chauvin is accused of doing.
Now, you may tell me that it's wrong.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, I don't like seeing this and it resulted in someone's death.
I think it's really, really bad.
But if Derek Chauvin was trained to do this, how do you argue manslaughter or murder?
You can argue that his actions resulted in the death of George Floyd.
That's true.
I mean, the medical examiner says being restrained as well as intoxicants in his systems and underlying health effects.
But if the police department said, we want you to do this, we got a serious problem.
The way I explain it is, we ask police officers to go out and do these things.
We have a governmental system in place that tells the officers what they're supposed to do.
Notably, in this training exercise video, seriously, YouTube's gonna demonetize this, you can see them putting the knee on the neck.
If Derek Chauvin was just doing as he was trained by the police, then the problem is, the police department as a whole is at fault, and not Chauvin as an individual.
But I think many of these leftists don't see the difference between individual action and collective action.
Many of them are collectivists, so they don't care.
They say, lock up the cop.
I'm not a fan.
I think the cop as an individual should not be held to account because of what we as a community asked him to do.
And think about what this really means in the long run.
If these people who are collectivists, socialists, communists, not all, I'm not saying literally everyone on the left, I'm saying if the people who are socialists are saying that the collective must dictate, but you will be personally held responsible for what the collective dictates, that is a nightmarish world to live in, I gotta tell you this.
So you're a cop, and they say, go out and arrest this guy because he committed a crime, and when they arrest you instead, you'd be like, why would I do this?
Why would someone want to be a member of the Minneapolis Police Department when they're basically threatening you that if you defend yourself, if you do as you are trained to do, you will go to jail for it?
You have to be the stupidest people in the world to work for the Minneapolis Police Department right now.
No joke.
Each and every one.
And maybe the left will really love this.
If you work for the Minneapolis Police Department, you are not a smart person.
They will sacrifice you to stop the outrage as they are doing.
And many people might say, oh, but he's not going to get convicted.
Oh, yeah, you want to spend nearly a year in jail and holding in an orange jumpsuit when you were doing as you were trained to do?
I don't like what Chauvin did.
I don't like what any of these cops do.
The problem is the police department.
And we should reform the system.
But think about how stupid you'd have to be to work for the Minneapolis Police Department right now.
A lot of these cops quit.
A lot of cops across the country were quitting, and there was huge exodus.
And what ended up happening was they started hiring what many cops were... I got messages from cops saying, these are scabs, right?
It's basically a revolt against the system for many of these officers.
They're quitting, saying, I don't want to be arrested because I was told by my boss to do something.
Think about it.
I suppose you could say that just following orders is no excuse.
And that's true, and I wholeheartedly believe that.
If someone tells you to do something and you know it's wrong, and you do it, you're responsible.
The difference here is that Derek Chauvin didn't, like, grab George Floyd because someone told him to and then shoot him.
He held him on the ground and did as he was trained to restrain him, which is described as putting the person in a position to alleviate positional asphyxia, so this document says.
Maybe it doesn't.
But according, like I said, according to this insider report, No signs of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.
Could it be that this, what he did with the knee on the neck was meant to hold someone down without compressing their chest?
Well, the autopsy report says there was no asphyxiation.
So now you have an instance where, I don't believe Chauvin wanted to kill anybody.
I don't think he wanted to hurt the guy.
I just think for the most part, most of these cops don't care.
They do as they're trained, they'll hold someone down.
There was no intent to kill, so maybe manslaughter.
But in the end, I think each and every one of these cops would probably be wise not to work for these departments.
I gotta be honest, I don't know why any of these cops want to work for any of these departments.
I know there's a lot of cops that watch the show.
Y'all are brave, I'll put it that way, for a lot of reasons.
For a lot of reasons, y'all are brave.
I've seen the videos of people jumping out of their car and shooting these cops.
These are scary things.
A video went viral recently where a woman apparently asked a couple cops to escort her to her property because there was a dude who had a gun and he was like stalking and threatening her, like an ex of some sort.
And the cops are just standing there like, you know, do you know where he is?
Do you know where he has the gun?
And the dude just barges in and starts shooting like crazy.
A lot of these, you know, and that's why a lot of these cops are often on edge.
And that's why I think a couple things when it comes to police.
For a society to function, police need to be able to make arrests.
That also means you'll end up with some cops who are bad cops who just arrest you and it's annoying.
We need police reform.
Cops should not do that.
It also means, however, if a cop is conducting a reasonable investigation and detains you, chill out.
Look, I understand these people who scream their rights, and I'm like, I get it, you're allowed to do it, so by all means, go ahead.
I just think it's silly.
When I've been stopped by the cops, you keep your mouth shut.
You be polite, you keep your mouth shut, and you comply.
And some people are like, it's not fair that I have to spend a night in jail because this cop was wrong.
And it's like, yeah, that happens.
It does suck.
I've had a couple instances where I was wrongfully arrested and spent a night, was overnight in jail.
And then I ended up winning instantly in court.
But if a cop comes to arrest you and you fight with them, well now you're not going to win in court.
They're gonna say you resisted, you fought, you assaulted an officer, and you're gonna get all that stuff.
Cop walks up to me, grabs my arms, puts them behind my back, and I just didn't say anything.
Put me in the squad car, and I said, there we go.
That's it.
You have the right to remain silent.
You would be smart to use it.
Because they will use what you say against you.
And then, the biggest problem, always, is when people talk.
When they talk, and they think they can talk their way out of this.
What you need to understand is, these cops are doing a job, a job they've been asked to do, and sometimes they do stupid things, things that I really don't like.
Sometimes they do illegal, criminal things.
You still don't win when you fight with them.
But oftentimes you'll have these dudes who will try and talk their way out of an arrest when the cop doesn't know or care.
You're arrested.
It's done.
Now, I will tell you this.
When I got arrested in D.C.
during these riots, I did ask for the supervisor and I held up my press card.
That did get me released, but there's a big difference.
Between a riot where they're arresting everybody, and you're standing with a group of journalists holding press cards, and they don't want to actually arrest journalists, and a cop investigating, say, a robbery, a crime, a counterfeit bill, and they try to arrest or detain you, and you fight and scream and spit and yowl, and then they get you for resisting.
So, look.
I'm not a fan of the state oppressing or suppressing people's rights.
I'm not a fan of wrongful arrests or arbitrary arrests.
But I am a fan of tact and strategy.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't know how to deal with this and I don't blame them for it.
But let me get to the main point here.
So we have, according to Cairo 7, they say, what's going to happen?
They say, you can be charged with second-degree murder, up to 40 years.
They say a person can be charged if the death is caused without intent, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order of protection.
Okay.
What Chavin was doing, as you saw in those training documents, does not seem like he was trying to intentionally harm the man.
As for manslaughter, it gets interesting.
They say, you can get convicted of manslaughter in second degree.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment of not more than 10 years or to payment of a fine not more than $20,000 or both.
They say, by the person's culpable negligence, whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death of great bodily harm to another.
Right there.
They'll argue, he may have been trained to use his knee, but for nine minutes, when Floyd became unresponsive, and he just stayed there with his knee on his neck, the defense will likely say, simply being unresponsive does not mean the person was hurt or dead.
In fact, based on the training that the officer had, this was the safer position to hold him in, and it actually was not creating a risk.
They can say that this was, like, when you, you don't want to rest on someone's chest, because then you end up with, like, an Eric Garner situation, where he says, I can't breathe, and they're like, shut up, you can talk, you can breathe.
You can't.
You can exhale, but you can't inhale.
So talking is possible, but you can't inhale.
So they put their knee on the neck, as they're trained to do.
Is it a bad policy?
Seems like it may be a bad policy.
But I'll tell you what else, though.
When they start banning these things, The only thing that these cops can do, if they're not allowed to put someone in a chokehold, which can subdue someone while keeping them alive, they can't pin them to the ground.
If their only options are tase and shoot, then the only things they will do are tase and shoot.
And it's likely to result in more lethal force.
So I bring this up to say, here's what may happen.
Chavin may be convicted on manslaughter.
He will likely not be convicted of second-degree murder.
That sounds insane.
If it's political, they might just give him second degree.
Yeah.
If it's not poli... Well, actually, I'll say this.
If it's political, they might just say, you know, not guilty of... They might say guilt in second degree and guilty of manslaughter.
If it's political in the other way, in favor of the cops, which also happens, he'll be found not guilty of all charges.
If it is a fair and actual trial, there will be a legitimate argument for manslaughter.
Legitimate argument.
However, if Chavin is not convicted of second-degree murder in any of these scenarios, there will be mass riots.
Period.
They can get him.
They can get him for 10 years.
They can say, you are found guilty of manslaughter, 10 years.
10 years in prison, and they will still riot unless murder is... if he's found guilty of murder.
So I hope you're ready.
I think it's gonna get wild.
I think it's gonna get wild.
But we'll see how long it takes.
Who knows?
This is gonna be for months, probably, and we'll see how this plays out, but people are gonna be following this trial very closely, and I will as well, and I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
If you watch nothing but corporate press, they will have you believing that the biggest threat to American democracy, as they call it, is QAnon.
Fringe, unhinged conspiracy theorists who believe insane things about Donald Trump, so they say.
But if you look to the riots in the streets, if you look to the actual destruction and damage, it's not QAnon doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Q stuff is completely off the rails, and many of these people have been duped, and it's particularly sad.
Recently, Tucker Carlson got slammed because he basically said they were nice, gentle people, and for the most part, when you watch these CNN clips about QAnon, you just see a bunch of people who believe things that kind of make no sense.
I'm not freaking out about it.
Now, as for the people who stormed into the Capitol, who had the Q symbol and all that stuff, that's the worst of it.
But not everybody who went into the Capitol stormed in.
While we can all accept that was dumb, that was bad, that was dangerous, and it's unfortunate people lost their lives, I'm sorry.
QAnon is not the biggest threat this country faces.
Do you want to know what is?
Probably not even this next point, but I'll tell you what is a big threat to American democracy.
Maybe even the biggest.
BlueAnon.
You may have heard this term.
It's been going around more and more, and I've been using it for quite some time.
I think it was actually Jack Posobiec who coined the term, but BlueAnon is basically these leftist conspiracies that have establishment backing.
I'll tell you what.
When you follow people like Mike Cernovich or Jack Posobiec, prominent Trump supporters, they will tell you that the Q stuff is not real.
But if you follow Rachel Maddow, if you follow the New York Times, they will tell you Blue Anon stuff is real.
And they will tell you we need 25,000 National Guard troops fencing and razor wire surrounding the Capitol because of it.
They take things from a simple truth, a small fact, and they stretch it beyond recognition.
This is how the media operates, mind you.
So is it true that people stormed the Capitol?
Yes.
Was it bad?
Of course it was bad.
Were these people... Was it ill-conceived, dangerous, and outright stupid?
Oh, definitely.
Like, to think that you're going to enter a physical government building and then take the government was nuts.
But you take a small thing like that, Granted, I understand.
It's a big deal.
I'm not going to pretend like it's the apocalypse or anything, but that's what they do.
You have this one main event with, I think it was a total of 800 people, so I read, that entered the Capitol building, and there were about 3,000 outside of it.
That translates now into March 4th.
The militia will attack the Capitol.
We must have 5,000 more troops.
And then when nothing happens, what do they say?
We're going to extend the National Guard lockdown in D.C.
for two more months.
Let me tell you how crazy and dangerous this is.
I have no problem being critical of QAnon and pointing that out on this show.
There are many people who are into alternative media who will equally point out we must get our facts straight.
The media will also point out that these Q people are over the top, but they'll take it very, very far.
And you know what?
Fine.
Be critical of those you disagree with.
But what happens when you criticize Blue Anon?
When you point out that the left is pushing similar unhinged conspiracies resulting in violence and destruction?
The big lie of the left.
We saw this in the data.
When you ask people, How many unarmed black men were killed by police?
Liberals say, the plurality, over a thousand.
That's the big lie.
The media keeps telling that there's this dangerous thing that's happening.
These things, like the Russiagate stuff, they are not based in reality.
But the left just believes it, because the establishment pushes it.
So I tell you this, when I hear a conspiracy theory from the right or the left, I typically will approach it from, show me the evidence.
When the conspiracy theory on the right falls apart, I'll say that's not true, and the left, I'll say the same thing.
But what happens when the leftist conspiracies are debunked?
Does the mainstream media come out and say, we were wrong about this, we're so sorry?
No.
Case in point, I can talk about a news cycle news story, where I can say something like, Donald Trump's approval rating, in aggregate, is higher than it's ever been, which happened when he was giving his press conferences.
In the context of that day, the story makes a lot of sense when I'm like, wow, people really do approve of Trump.
A month or two later, when Donald Trump's approval rating collapses, you will have establishment types take clips from yesterday and apply it to today as though it's in today's context.
This is the problem with how the media operates and how Blue Anon operates.
The media can claim Trump is a Russian asset.
They can go on MSNBC and say all these things.
But when it comes to today, when we know that's all completely bunk and debunked, What happens?
No one takes that clip and then plays it on CNN or NBC or CBS and says, boy, were we wrong about this.
They just ignore it.
The establishment supports it.
Let me show you.
Let me show you something.
So, we have this story from M-E-A-W-W, they say, there's a tweet from, I think they have a tweet from Jack Posobiec.
He says, I have never even heard of a word being banned from Urban Dictionary before they banned Blue Anon.
They do ban words.
Urban Dictionary has banned many things they've deemed to be culturally insensitive.
But they actually deleted the entry for Blue Anon.
Why?
It's just a phrase that someone uploaded.
On Urban Dictionary, you can post, hey, there's a phrase people use, here's what it means.
It's Urban Dictionary.
So as more and more people started talking about the threat of Blue Anon, Urban Dictionary deleted it.
They deleted it.
Now, they have brought it back, but let me explain the seriousness of the threat that is Blue Anon.
Urban Dictionary says, Blue Anon is a loosely organized network of Democrat voters, politicians, and media personalities who spread left-wing conspiracy theories such as the Russian hoax, Jussie Smollett hoax, Ukraine hoax, Covington Kid hoax, and Brett Kavanaugh hoax.
Blue Anon adherents fervently believe that right-wing extremists are going to storm Capitol Hill any day now and remove lawmakers from office.
Hence, the need for the deployment of thousands of National Guard stationed at the D.C.
Capitol.
It's true.
They believe this stuff.
And it is very, very dangerous for us because we now have thousands of National Guard deployed for what reason?
Unfortunately, the mainstream press, the corporate press, I shouldn't say mainstream, I don't like it, the corporate press, will tell you this stuff is real.
And when it's proven false, they won't tell you it's false.
So there are people who still believe this insanity.
Boy, I tell you, I have heard some of the craziest and most unhinged conspiracies from the left that are still propped up by establishment press today.
Some of them involve me.
It's insane.
They make things up about me or others, and the media runs with it.
unidentified
And they say, one user claimed this, and it must be true.
says, American conservative author and political commentator Candace Owens has provided a new conspiracy theory for those who continue to support former President Donald Trump.
Owens took to Twitter on Sunday to mock people who say Trump fans are a nonstop threat to D.C., calling them Blue Anon believers, and hit out at moaning Markle before her Oprah interview.
She said, If you believe D.C.
is under military occupation because there are nonstop threats from Trump supporters, Joe Biden is the most popular American president of all time, Russia, Russia, Russia, you might be Blue Anon, wrote Owens.
And then they just showed the tweet.
The term Blue Anon is an obvious play on QAnon, a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of awful people do awful things.
I don't want to get into that because, you know, YouTube will probably knock this channel down.
But let me just say, The Q stuff is more than just what they claim it is when they talk about an evil cabal of people who are, you know, kidnapping people.
Children.
They say the term Blueanon was immediately called out by many who saw this as an attempt to gaslight people.
One Twitter user said, Republicans are using Blueanon to deflect from the fact that their base and dear leader Trump is CEO of conspiracy theories.
Donald Trump certainly believes dumb things, and I have absolutely no problem being critical of QAnon.
But you see the problem here?
The establishment press has no problem criticizing Q, but they can't accept it themselves, even though we know.
Jussie Smollett, hoax.
Brett Kavanaugh, hoax.
Russia, hoax.
Ukrainegate, hoax.
Twitter suppressed a story about Hunter Biden just before the election, and then a month later, if the election was over, admitted it was all true.
You see the danger here?
When you whip up violent lunatics to go riot and destroy cities, And you keep defending the lie.
They say Trump's big lie is the election was stolen.
Well, the left has a big lie as well, and it pertains to police brutality, and it pertains to race.
They whipped up people to go and burn down entire cities, figuratively, okay?
The entirety of the whole city.
I'm talking about many of these cities saw widespread destruction, vandalism, death.
Kamala Harris funded this, supported, I should say solicited donations to bail the rioters out.
Did Donald Trump solicit donations to bail out the Q people?
No.
Are Republicans defending the Q people?
No, of course not.
You see the problem here?
We regular people, those that don't want any violence and want peaceful transitions and calm, rational understanding, are rightly concerned about both.
But forgive me if I'm not going to scream to the high heavens about the dangers of QAnon, when what do they do for the most part?
Wave little American flags and complain and say dumb things?
I'm talking specifically about these CNN segments, where you have one guy saying, like, Trump's gonna be inaugurated, mark my words, and then nothing happens.
Nothing happens.
It's not gonna happen.
Joe Biden is the president.
It's just it.
On the left, though, they can literally believe insane conspiracies about police officers hunting down minorities throughout the streets, go and burn down buildings and cause $2 billion in damage, and the media supports all of it.
That's the big lie.
And there's no one to call it out.
Because when people like me, when we call it out, the establishment just has more cultural power.
Period.
A lot of people call them the left, but the actual leftists aren't big fans of the neoliberal establishment.
So it's just the establishment.
I think it's better to call it the establishment.
However, the leftists often do line up behind the establishment Democrats when they need to or when it benefits them.
So therein lies the bigger problem.
Plus, many of these leftists actually are critical race theorists.
They do overlap with, you know, the establishment.
This guy on Twitter says, Blue Anon is the hysterical term the radical right is using to gaslight people into thinking none of the BS Trumpies do is real.
That's not true at all.
A bunch of right-wing people did a bunch of really dumb things.
Absolutely.
And if you don't want to accept that Trump has his faction of, you know, deranged supporters, well then you are lying to yourself.
But I'm not going to pretend it's the biggest threat in the world.
Because when one of these Q people posts their conspiracy theory, they get banned from Twitter.
So why should I care?
I think the ideas are bad, many of them, and I'll call them out.
More so than Tucker Carlson.
Well, Tucker Carlson said they were like gentle people or something.
Listen, unhinged conspiracies deserve to be called out as unhinged conspiracies.
But they have no institutional authority.
The left does.
The establishment does.
Another tweet.
This guy says Republicans are using Blue Anon to deflect.
Amy Lynn says, if you believe in Blue Anon, you also believe that unicorns fart rainbows.
Blue Anon is a term to describe the fact that the Covington kids thing was a hoax.
Jussie Smollett, hoax.
That woman at Smith College, hoax.
Brett Kavanaugh, hoax.
Russiagate, hoax.
Ukrainegate hoax.
I suppose, depending on how you talk about Ukrainegate, if you want to say that Joe Biden did get a prosecutor fired who was investigating a company where his son was on the board, that really happened.
And it was only after the election they were like, yeah, I mean, well, you know, but it was okay that he did it, right?
At the same time, it was also embraced by conservatives and far-right commentators like Jack Masovic who said, you might be blueing on if you think Brett Kavanaugh did these things right.
Let me show you something.
Let's talk about Q from Newsweek.
QAnon theorists switch date to March 20th after no Trump inauguration call the 4th a false flag.
I tweeted, it's a cult, when I saw this story.
Because you have a faction of people who genuinely believe this.
I have no problem criticizing them.
But let's play a little game.
It's called, Let's Weigh the Threats We Face.
Newsweek says, let me read this for you.
You're going to love this.
You're going to absolutely love it.
As federal law enforcement agencies braced for Q conspiracy theorists to engage in potential acts of violence on Thursday, leading affiliates of the far-right extremist movement seemed to amend formerly held beliefs about the significance of March 4th.
Now, while I believe the greater Q community does not actually follow this and they've been critical of it, There are a lot of people who do believe.
Every single time Trump doesn't get inaugurated, they just move the date, they change it, they try and justify it.
I know because I've actually talked to some of these people in the past couple of months asking them why they believe this stuff.
My favorite, absolute favorite and most important thing right here, check it out.
Some QAnon supporters seemed to rebrand the March 4th conspiracy in the wake of community suspicion.
While two individuals affiliated with the false theories simply suggested that Trump's inauguration would take place sometime in the spring, one man, identified as Ken, Told the Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel that the former president will be inaugurated again on the 20th in comments over the weekend.
Ken also believes that Trump is still in command of the military and Biden is acting as president as a ruse while the Pope and others are rounded up.
Bravo, Washington Post, for tracking down Ken.
Ken.
Who?
What?
You found some random guy who believes stupid BS and you wrote a news article for it for Washington Post?
Amazing!
I used to only joke that such absurdities were a real thing.
You may have seen news articles where they say, a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office confirms And then you're like, what does that mean?
Or they'll say, a source familiar with Trump's thinking said.
I love that one.
A source familiar with Trump's thinking says that he's outraged that he had his Twitter account banned.
Who is this psychic person that you've spoken with?
I usually make jokes.
They'll say, a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office says, and the source close to her office will be a homeless guy in the alley behind her office who was found and then started ranting about how the moon is made of cheese.
And they'll be like, oh, this guy was this source.
Close to Nancy Pelosi's office said that she was secretly working for the communists in China to take over the country.
And it's some ranting lunatic guy in the back going like, oh, Nancy Pelosi, oh, she's working for China!
And it's insane.
I didn't think they'd actually do it.
I was just kind of being... I was exaggerating to make a point.
But here we go.
The Washington Post found some random guy named Ken, and wrote an article about it.
Should I go out, walk down the street, and find some random guy, ask him his stupidest belief, and then write an article saying, it's a danger we all face, because I spoke with one guy whose name was Bill, who told me that Martians are coming.
For real?
And they tell us this is the biggest threat?
Now, did you find Donald Trump Jr., or Kushner, or Trump Sr., or Ivanka, or even Jack Posobiec or Sernovich to tell you these unhinged conspiracies?
You didn't.
You found someone with no influence, who has no title, just some random guy named Ken, and then claimed, there we go, it's happening.
Absolutely psychotic BS.
I've seen the balloon on stuff.
It's actually creepy stuff.
You have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC.
Not only do they believe this stuff, not only do they pump out lies for which never get corrected.
When they do get corrected, when the stories are proven false, these networks don't do anything.
Case in point, when the New York Times reported that law enforcement officials say that Officer Sicknick at the Capitol died due to blunt force trauma to the head.
According to sources, they say, who?
When?
What are the sources?
This was used as evidence in the impeachment trial, and then after the impeachment trial was over, what happened?
The New York Times quietly went in and issued an update.
Oh, actually, that didn't happen.
The Daily Mail actually spoke with the officer's mother, and she said, he didn't die of a fire accident, he died of a stroke, like, a day later, totally unrelated.
No, no, it had nothing to do with the riots.
There you go.
When the media pushes unhinged conspiracies that rile people up, and they try and use it to impeach, at the time, a former president, I'm sorry, but American democracy, as they call it, is very much being destroyed by them.
And I'm sorry, my friends.
But I'm not optimistic that... Well, let me rephrase.
I'm actually a bit optimistic in many capacities.
But I'm not optimistic we're going to get out of this one and go back to the way things used to be.
I'm optimistic that the establishment is collapsing, and these stories are proof they're becoming insanely desperate.
But it's not going to be the way it was before.
There's going to be a new normal, and that's a bad thing for a lot of reasons.
But I do think, ultimately, that the good guys will prevail.
I do.
As Michael Malice says, if they were winning, the propaganda would not be necessary.
There you go.
They need to find a way to justify having all of these soldiers in D.C.
so they write some garbage article about some dude they found in an alley living by the dumpster who's got some crazy beliefs.
I am exaggerating.
I don't know where this guy lives.
But think about how insane it is that a mainstream major publication would track down some random dude, ask him about his random nonsensical beliefs, and then publish an article and tell you to be scared, be threatened, because these people won't stop ever!
It's time to end the occupation of Washington, D.C.
I can't im- I- I- I- I- No, no, no, no.
You know, I- I was gonna say I can't imagine, but I can.
I feel bad for the National Guardsmen who are down there.
Think about this.
These people are so loyal to the- to the country, to the system, that even when they're fed raw beef, raw chicken, and food with metal shavings in it, which they were, even when they're told to sleep in a parking garage with one bathroom and one power outlet, they do.
They don't defy the orders.
They do it.
At a certain point, however, that does worry me. All these National Guards men and women
who are willing to endure such humiliation and disrespect because, well, they have a job because
they swore an oath and they're going to follow their chain of command. In the face of that
humiliation and disrespect, I am well honored, I suppose, to have these people, you know,
serving as our National Guard.
It is tremendous that the things they're willing to endure to keep us safe.
But you know what's scary?
How much would they, how many, what orders would they be willing to follow for that same system?
We hear, just following orders is never an excuse.
Well, the police do it.
The National Guard is doing it right now.
The National Guard standing around D.C.
with razor wire, keeping out American citizens from their own capital, which they're allowed to walk around.
This is authoritarianism on the rise.
And you can clearly see National Guardsmen and women will not only follow any order they're given.
I shouldn't say necessarily any order, but these seemingly nonsensical ones.
But even in the face of humiliation, they'll just follow these orders.
There's pros and there's cons.
As I said, it takes a strong person to be humiliated to that degree, but still stand firm and defend, you know, their oath.
But it's also scary that you can have these people absolutely humiliated at this point, doing something nonsensical and authoritarian, and they will still just do it.
Authoritarianism doesn't come overnight.
There won't just be one day where a train rolls up and say, all aboard.
That's not how it works.
It's every day it gets worse.
Every day we see the media push these unhinged paranoid delusions and demonize anyone who opposes them.
They're allowed to do it.
And then they'll start telling people to go to the COVID hotels like in Canada.
Then they'll start saying you can't travel, you can't leave the country.
Then they'll start saying you can't leave your home.
They've been doing it.
And I'll tell you one thing.
They'll tell you now, oh, but all the COVID restrictions were justified and, you know, we're going to ease things up.
The CDC is now saying if you got vaccinated, you can, you know, wear a mask or whatever, but you probably shouldn't travel.
It's just degrees.
So the next time they institute a mass lockdown, people will just be like, just like last time, and they'll go along with it.
You see, you can't change a society overnight.
If you go to someone and tell them to do something dramatically different, they will revolt.
I'll give you an example.
The one I love to give.
eBay.
eBay, at one point, had a yellow website.
One day, they turned the website white because they wanted to redesign.
The users revolted.
They were outraged.
This is gross.
It's ugly.
It's too bright.
Oh, I hate it.
So they changed it back.
But then every day after that, they slowly changed the yellow one shade towards white every day for like a year, until a year later the website was white and no one cared.
You see how it works?
You do it slowly and gradually.
So now you've just had, we're facing the one year anniversary of 15 days to slow the spread.
And everybody just accepts it.
Everybody.
Take a look at the masks.
Someone made an interesting point.
They said, If people were really concerned about you not wearing a mask because it was going to get them sick, they would just avoid you.
When people harass you for not wearing a mask, it's actually because you're being disobedient.
You're defying the collective.
Perhaps.
I don't think entirely, but I think it's an interesting point.
Because we did have that one video where the guy yells, does anyone else think it's not fair that she doesn't have to wear a mask and we do?
There's an actual video of that.
For the most part, I got no problem wearing a mask.
And I think, you know, just whatever.
Who cares?
You gotta wear a shirt when you go shopping, too, so I don't mind.
The point is, when they do the lockdowns, when they take away your job, what's the next thing they'll do they think they can get away with?
I suppose the media will just keep pumping out unhinged conspiracies and keep everyone convinced of it.
