S573 - Biden Wrongly Denounces Constitutional Rights In Order To Enforce Democrat Gun Control Agenda
Biden Wrongly Denounces Constitutional Rights In Order To Enforce Democrat Gun Control Agenda. Joe Biden pushed several incorrect statements as to our first amendment rights and our second amendment rights.
Republicans don't fare much better as they tend not to fight on behalf of conservatives all that often but Democrats take the cake here.
To use obvious misconceptions to manipulate the ignorant in order to push authoritarian policy is shocking.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
President Joe Biden incorrectly denounces several constitutional rights guaranteed in the Constitution in order to justify his signing several executive orders that would push the Democrats' gun control agenda.
The President doesn't have this authority.
The only change that could come is from a convention of states or Supreme Court rulings, and it would seem Joe Biden knows this, hence his statements about what we can or can't do based on the Constitution.
In our next story, the great experiment with progressive district attorneys seems to be going miserably.
Crime is skyrocketing, and now it may seem that some of these progressive district attorneys will not get re-elected.
In our last story, Marjorie Taylor Greene was smeared relentlessly by the media, and she's now reported she raised $3.2 million in her first quarter, five times as much as Ocasio-Cortez did.
The media tried to knock her down, but it seems to have backfired.
So we'll talk about campaign finance reform and what this means.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show.
Give us five stars, leave a positive comment.
It really does help.
And if you really, really like the show, please consider sharing it with your friends.
Let them know that it's a good show and they should listen to it.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Today, in a bold statement, President Joe Biden wrongly denied the authority of the Constitution as he says he will be signing new executive orders on gun control.
He made several statements which are obvious misconceptions about the First and Second Amendment.
Notably, that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can.
And notably, that since the dawn of this country, you couldn't just own any gun you want.
But even a fact check by USA Today challenges this assertion.
Joe Biden, like anyone in government who is being restrained, would seek to minimize the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Now, the Constitution doesn't give us our rights.
Those rights, according to the United States, come from God.
Whether you believe in God or not, the point is they're inherent in all of us.
The Constitution stops the government from infringing those rights.
So when Joe Biden comes out and makes several false statements about the First and Second Amendment, I can only assume he knows he's lying.
Mostly because there are legal experts that work with the President to make sure their executive orders are constitutional and legal.
Joe Biden certainly knows that back in the day, You could have cannons.
Back in the day, there were volley guns.
And there was something called the puckle gun.
And that, according to a Supreme Court ruling now going back nearly 50 years ago, I'm sorry, more than 50 years ago, you can in fact yell, fire in a crowded theater.
Joe Biden is playing to the emotions of the people of this country and to their ignorance in pushing these lies so that he can he can enact gun control without going through Congress.
Unfortunately for him, the Constitution says shall not be infringed.
If people want gun control, then there needs to be new Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitution, or there needs to be a convention of states to change the Constitution.
Now, Joe Biden seems to think that there can be laws passed that will take away your rights, as if your rights are up for a vote.
They're not.
But this is a problem we face in the United States, as over time, our rights have been eroded.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the amendments afterwards are becoming Swiss cheese, with selective enforcement that makes no sense.
Now I wasn't always the biggest 2A person, but with the Constitution being written, in paper, available to all of us, I have come to the realization over the past several years from many powerful and important debates and arguments that we cannot allow the government to pick and choose what is or isn't a right when the Constitution makes this clear.
So let's go through exactly what Joe Biden wants to do.
But more importantly, I want to talk about the misconceptions and break down the lies that Joe Biden pushed today and explain to you what you can and cannot do.
Currently on the books, there are many unconstitutional gun control laws, and we are seeing some pretty serious legal action which may make its way to the Supreme Court.
And there's potentially a case which could come up soon Or maybe not necessarily soon, but some cases that could result in people being allowed to open carry everywhere.
You know, in many states, you're not legally allowed to keep and bear arms.
The Constitution was clear about this.
Even if gun control advocates want to argue that there should be some restrictions, it makes no sense then that many blue states restrict everything except under extreme circumstances.
I'm looking at you, New Jersey.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
We had Brandon Tatum the other day talking about why he thought no knock warrants were good.
He has six years experience as a cop.
He breaks it all down for you.
Something you might not hear in the mainstream media.
We also had Seamus from Freedom Tunes, Michael Malice.
When you go to TimCast.com, become a member.
You help support the show.
In the event we get banned, this is where we will be posting our content.
But don't forget, To like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read the news.
First from the Daily Mail.
Biden says no amendment in the Constitution is absolute and calls gun violence a public health crisis and embarrassment as he prepares to sign six executive orders cracking down on firearms.
The first thing I will say.
Obviously no constitutional amendment is absolute.
But that doesn't give the President the right to simply sign a piece of paper saying, we end these rights.
They're not absolute because the Supreme Court has to interpret them fairly.
And they've gone back and forth in many different ways over long periods of time.
The President doesn't have the authority to override the Constitution.
Neither does the Supreme Court.
But in these lawsuits, the Supreme Court can interpret them.
Thus, we often see rights gained back through the Supreme Court.
And it seems, over time, the Supreme Court has protected and expanded the rights of individuals in this country, from anti-miscegenation laws being effectively abolished—1967, Loving v. Virginia—to gay marriage, and even expanding gun ownership rights and free speech rights in the past century.
The Daily Mail reports, President Joe Biden on Thursday described mass shootings in America as a public health crisis and declared no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.
He started off on the defensive, declaring he was not trying to impinge on the Second Amendment, an argument gun rights groups, Republicans and some Democrats have made.
Quote, nothing I'm about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.
Okay, you could have said infringes.
These are phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake, he said at an event in the Rose Garden.
No amendment in the Constitution is absolute, he declared, pointing to the famous Supreme Court ruling that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater as part of the First Amendment's free speech clause.
Should we break that down?
He goes on to say, from the very beginning, you couldn't own any weapon you wanted to own.
And from the very beginning of the Second Amendment, from the very beginning it existed, certain people weren't allowed to have weapons.
So the idea is just bizarre to suggest some of the things we're recommending are contrary to the Constitution.
Gun violence in this country is an epidemic, and it's an international embarrassment.
For God's sake, it has to stop.
Gun violence is bad.
Absolutely.
But then why is Joe Biden calling for an assault weapons ban?
Gun violence is overwhelmingly not AR-15s.
So why, then, do they keep saying AR-15?
Well, some people think it's more conspiratorial.
They want to seize your guns so that you can't defend yourself.
I think it's more sheer ignorance, and it's a hot-button issue for liberals to tribally claim they care about.
They don't.
I don't think they actually care.
If they did, Chicago would be a different story.
There would be more people moving there and respecting many of these neighborhoods and having a good time.
Instead, they call it Chirac and they flee.
Democrats have controlled Chicago for generations.
They do not care.
For some reason, they want to ban the AR-15, which is kind of crazy because there's several other variants, semi-automatic weapons that aren't AR-15s that are functionally the same.
Why aren't those being banned?
Because Democrats are just telling you what you want to hear, and they're not being honest with you.
Now, this may come as a surprise to many Republicans, they do the exact same thing.
Or I should say, Republican voters.
Because Republican politicians do very much the same thing, and Republican politicians are content with doing absolutely nothing and fighting for nothing on behalf of conservatives.
So it's not like the political establishment in any party is doing good for the American people, or at least what they want.
Instead, you're being misled.
You're being lied to.
Now, I want to go over exactly what Joe Biden's measures will do.
Just very briefly, he wants to target ghost guns.
These are guns that you essentially manufacture yourself and you can't sell.
He also wants to go after red flag laws.
The idea here is that if someone is mentally unfit or unwell, you can take their guns temporarily to make an assessment, and if they're crazy, they don't get them back.
Now, some of these things they call common sense.
Another thing Joe Biden talked about doing was ending loopholes in background checks.
There's no such thing as a background check loophole.
That is another lie, or at the very least, misconception.
Background checks exist for all FFLs.
All federally licensed dealers have to run what's called a NICS background check when you buy a gun.
You fill out the form, they run it through the system.
Surprise, surprise, it's Joe Biden's own son who was reportedly lying on a background check form to illegally obtain a gun.
I find it fascinating that Joe Biden wants to lecture me on loopholes when it's his own kid that he should be having arrested.
But let me slow down.
The first thing I want to do is break down the two big lies from Joe Biden.
These are big, big lies because they never seem to stop.
Let's start with the first one.
A very easy one to debunk.
I ain't just throw it over to good ol' Fox News.
Lemon and Cuomo clash over whether you can yell fire in a crowded theater.
Fox News reported on January 12th.
CNN anchors Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo got into a back and forth during their handoff on Monday night about whether or not it's a crime to yell fire in a crowded theater.
The two were talking about the limitations of the First Amendment and President Trump's speech before the right at the Capitol.
Cuomo, who has earned his law degree at Fordham University in 95, told Lemon a Supreme Court justice once said that that amendment is not designed to scream fire in a crowded theater.
Lemon disagreed with his colleague and said that he did not believe it was an apt comparison.
The two spoke over each other for a moment and Lemon said, Chris, you're an attorney.
You know that you can actually scream fire in a crowded theater.
That's a misnomer.
We don't want to get into that.
I'm gonna say something that will shock you to your core.
My friends, I hope you are ready for this next statement.
Don Lemon is right.
I said it!
No, he is, he is.
I'm kidding, you know, but Don Lemon is correct.
You literally can yell fire in a crowded theater.
There was another argument attached to this that what if someone yelled that there aren't enough fire escapes in a crowded theater?
And, essentially, the idea was, early on, you shouldn't do it.
And then, 50 years later, they ruled, you actually can.
My friends, I give you, Schenck versus the United States.
While, initially, there was a ruling in 1919, which used the analogy that you should not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater, the case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.
Which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
For example, a riot.
Something I've long maintained.
When I talk about free speech, I do say it is not absolute.
Though I will also add that over the past year or so, I've become more of a free speech absolutist over time for a variety of reasons.
While Joe Biden is trying to use this false idea, misconception to advance his idea that he can
restrict your rights.
There are many people who believe him who are being manipulated by this and need to
know the truth.
If you go into a crowded theater based on Brandenburg v.
Ohio and yell fire, it is not illegal.
They might kick you out, at which point you're trespassing because you're yelling in a theater,
but you absolutely can do this.
Joe Biden is wrong.
Then the next thing that Joe Biden brought up is that since the beginning of the Second
Amendment, you could not just own whatever you wanted.
And there were some people who weren't allowed to own weapons.
It's absolutely true.
There were some people not allowed to own weapons.
I mean, people go to jail.
When you're in jail, you can't own a weapon.
That's simple.
I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty details of who they restricted.
A lot of it was racist.
You get the point.
There's even in old movies where like... I can't remember what movie I'm watching.
It was an old western.
And some guy comes into a town and they're like, surrender your iron!
And he's like, okay.
And he like gives it up.
And I was like, I wonder if that's legit.
I gotta say, though, a lot of the ways that we interpret constitutional rights today is actually a lot better than it was way back in the day.
We talk about free speech.
There used to be obscenity laws.
You couldn't swear.
George Carlin got arrested for swearing.
You know, what is it, the seven words you can't say on TV?
Was it seven?
I think he expanded it later, like 13 or something.
The point is, we have more free speech today, though there are social enforcement restrictions we get from YouTube and other platforms.
Well, when Joe Biden says that you couldn't just own anything you want, my friends, I give you quite simply and obviously privateers.
Nuff said.
You know what a privateer is?
A privateer is, from Wikipedia, a private person or ship that engages in maritime warfare under a commission of war.
Oh, I know, already they're saying, aha, under a commission of war.
Right.
Because a privateer was commissioned under a letter of mark.
But what they say is, until the early 19th century, all merchant ships carried arms.
Enough said.
If you were going to be sailing the high seas and engaging in commerce, you were likely armed to the teeth.
And I think it's funny when many of these leftists are like, well, you couldn't own a cannon!
Uh, actually, from the Austin American Statesman, a USA Today Network website, and it's actually cited by one of the PolitiFact writers.
Okay.
Could individuals own cannons during the Revolutionary War?
A reader suggests we look into Biden's assertion on revolutionary war cannons to confirm Biden's point.
Quote, you would need to point to something, a law or tradition or a case where someone was not allowed to possess a cannon, said University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt.
But the Biden campaign was unable to point to a specific law.
The vice president's point is that to help end the tragic epidemic of mass shootings that is taking so many American lives, we need to ban weapons of war from our streets.
Historians say they are doubtful there were laws to bar individual ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary War period.
Quote, It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership of cannons, said Julie Ann Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University.
David Kopel, the Research Director and Second Amendment Project Director at the Free Market Independence Institute, agreed.
I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America.
There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.
And that's absolutely what I agree with on Biden.
Agree with, in terms of what Biden was saying, some people weren't allowed to have weapons.
In some places, you can't have weapons here.
Now, that was before the Revolution.
That was before the Second Amendment.
So the point is, perhaps we could argue, at that time when they had some controls, they said, hey, how about we create an amendment to the Constitution that says it shall not be infringed?
Okay.
Shall not be infringed is quite straightforward.
One of the friends that we have over here at the TimCast compound is from Sweden.
And our good Swedish friend, Nishra, asked us one day, very confused, I read the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And we're all in the house, we're all like, yeah.
And she goes, then how come you can't just go buy a gun?
And we all just burst out laughing.
In New Jersey, for instance, good luck.
Good luck.
It's hard enough to get your ID, to do all the paperwork, the background check.
I think it took me like two months.
I wouldn't call it the most... It's tedious and time-consuming.
And then, you can only buy one handgun, and it's rather difficult.
And then, you can't bear that arm.
You can keep it in your house, but you cannot bear the arm.
So that means you can't go outside, you can't protect yourself, unless you get some kind of special permit that almost no one can get.
The same is true for many other states that apparently are referred to as the Evil Seven.
Okay, now that we've broken down those lies from Joe Biden, I'd like to just bring up some additional lies that people say.
I tweeted in response to Joe Biden's statement.
I said, it's exhausting.
You can yell fire in a crowded theater, and privateers and corsairs have existed.
Corsair is a French version of privateer.
Big, massive merchant ships with cannons all around them, and they'd come in, they'd dock in the United States, and they'd do trade, and they'd go around and do their thing.
The response I get is beautiful.
unidentified
Yeah, but it took 60 seconds to reload a gun back then.
Dude, did you even bother to Google search guns back then?
I'm gonna first start light with all y'all.
And I'm not gonna do this big in-depth thing like Steven Crowder did.
Crowder went into the big history of all this stuff.
Let me just show you volley guns.
What's this?
A 15th century volley gun?
A volley gun is a multiple-barreled weapon.
We still have weapons today with multiple barrels.
Gatling guns, for instance.
Back then, what they would do is, they would muzzle load multiple barrels, and be able to fire them rapidly, one at a time, or full auto.
That's right, you heard me.
Fully automatic.
Why?
Cause some volley guns would operate off one firing mechanism.
So, that means, one trigger pull, and it would ignite all of the rounds at once.
That, my friends, is the definition of fully automatic.
A fully automatic weapon is when you pull the trigger one time and it starts firing non-stop.
Semi-automatic is when you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out, another bullet is chambered, and then you release the trigger and have to pull it again.
Semi-automatic means it's just ready to fire one, two, three, with each trigger pull.
Fully automatic is you pull the trigger once, multiple shots come out.
A volley gun, there's one YouTube video where they have an old school, it's like a revolutionary, revolution era volley gun.
It's like 20 barrels lined up horizontally, and you need only pull the cord one time and it goes ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba- 15th century volley guns.
Look at this.
The Rebaldequin was a medieval version of the volley gun.
It had its barrel set up in a parallel.
In parallel.
This early version was first employed during the Hundred Years War by the army of Edward III of England in 1339.
Later on, the late Swiss army employed it.
Multi-barreled artillery pieces continued in use during the 16th and 17th century.
A double-barreled cannon, called Elizabeth Henry, named after Charles I's youngest children, was used by the cavaliers during the English Civil War and fired two-ounce charges.
It could also fire grape shot.
The barrels were wrapped in leather to prevent rusting.
My friends on the left, when you say, they thought you were going to be muzzle-loading, Just because a musket was easy to carry for an individual doesn't mean they didn't have siege weapons.
You're wrong.
My favorite example of how wrong they are is the Puckle Gun, a machine gun from 300 years ago.
The Puckle Gun puts a lie to the anti-second amendment narrative that says it was written with only single-shot muskets in mind.
The Puckle Gun could fire, I think, 63 rounds in 9 minutes.
That's pretty fast for what appears to... It's a gun.
It's a large caliber weapon.
In 1718, in fact, I believe the Puckle Gun was first created in 1717.
And it was patented in 1718, and then it was put into production in, I think, around 1721.
Though there was only one, there was very limited use of it.
I think it was one guy who ended up using them.
The idea was, they wanted to use them against smaller ships, pirates basically, on the high seas.
They could aim it down on a tripod and they could fire.
It was a flintlock mechanism.
You fire, and then you wind it, you rotate the chamber, wind it back, fire again.
In a demonstration, the dude who created it, I forgot his name, James Puckle, fired, I think, 63 shots in 9 minutes and impressed a ton of people.
63 rounds in 7 minutes!
I was wrong!
It was even faster!
So they say, someone tweeted at me, you could only reload a musket once every 60 seconds.
Well, this dude got 10 times faster, more than 10 times faster than, well, a little bit less than 10 times faster.
He was able to do 63 rounds in a mere seven minutes.
Sorry, Joe Biden, you are wrong.
Now, we know he wants to ban ghost guns.
A ghost gun is when you get most of the materials, you have to drill them and make them yourself, for the most part.
It's mostly done, but you can't just snap it together and you have a gun.
You've got to actually do some drilling and some work, and then you're not legally allowed to sell it.
Let's talk about the other things that Joe Biden wants to do, and I'll tell you why I think Joe Biden's full of it.
Joe Biden says he wants to close these loopholes.
There is no such thing as a gun show loophole.
That's not real.
Some states allow private sales.
That has nothing to do with a background check.
It is still illegal to sell a weapon to someone who is not legally allowed to own a weapon.
We hear this all the time.
I've been through this because I've been actually going out buying guns, right?
I think West Virginia allows private sales.
If you're in West Virginia, you live in the mountains, and Joe Bob Jr.
lives five miles out, and he goes, hey man, you know, my gun broke, or it's old, it's busted, something happened to it, and I got a problem, 30 to 50 feral hogs just stormed my property.
On a private sale, the guy can say, I know you, and I am asserting that I am confident you can legally own a weapon, so I will sell you this gun.
Now, my understanding, most people would advise you to keep a record of that transaction, write down the serial number, and that way you know who it was transferred to, and in the event that gun was used for a crime, you can say, here's the bill of sale that was transferred to this individual.
Under this idea of loopholes, you wouldn't be allowed to do that.
Now I can understand the goal of universal background checks, but you have to understand why West Virginia doesn't want that.
Some dude who lives three hours away from the nearest small town or gun shop doesn't want to take his buddy three hours to spend a day to go and use a NICS reporting system at an FFL so they can make sure that there's a clean transfer.
They want to be able to sell it to the guy who lives next door to them.
Whether you like it or not, the point is, it's not a loophole in the background check law because there's no law pertaining to this.
The reason they're calling it a loophole is they're trying to make you believe there's already a background check law in place for all gun sales.
No.
Some don't have that.
For the most part, however, the idea of a gun show loophole is also wrong.
Because most people will tell you, at gun shows, there are federal agents all over the place, and you gotta take everything seriously.
Not only that, many of the people who are selling at gun shows are FFLs.
They're federally licensed firearm dealers.
And so, they're gonna run what's called the National Instant Criminal Check System.
I think that's what it's called.
NICS.
And they're gonna make sure you're legally led by the gun.
Because if you're at a gun show, and you're like, I don't know who this guy is, but I'm just gonna trust him.
Well, now you've got an issue.
What happens if he wasn't legally allowed to own that gun?
So most gun shows aren't just going to be like, here's your gun.
What you need to understand about the background check process, it can be rather quick for the average person.
However, some people get delayed.
That's right.
I've experienced five-day delays multiple times.
A wait period.
Why?
Because you have to go through a background check.
If Joe Biden knew that, maybe he wouldn't be pushing this ridiculous nonsense.
I'll tell you what, though.
I think Joe Biden actually does know this.
I think Joe Biden is a liar, and I think he's throwing red meat to the left.
I don't necessarily think it has anything to do with taking away your rights, sort of.
I can look at it more like incrementalization.
They're not going to come out and outright take every gun you have.
Red flag laws.
That's the most dangerous, in my opinion.
Someone, one day, there's been many stories like this, where a guy is in his house, one day the cops knock on his door.
Shows up to the door and he says, what can I do you for?
And they say, we're here to serve a red flag warrant and seize your guns.
And the guy says, not, you know, not from my, unless from my cold dead hands, or you have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
There's one story I read, I think it was in Baltimore.
Some woman, I think it was the sister of a guy, she called and said, he's acting erratic and he's got guns.
So they went to serve a red flag warrant, and when the guy went to his door, he had his gun.
Legally allowed to.
And the cops said, turn over your guns, and he said no.
The cops struggled and fought with him, then shot and killed him.
That's what will happen under these red flag laws.
They're a bad idea.
How about if you have a probable cause that someone is going to commit a crime, you can surveil them.
And again, requiring probable cause and a warrant to engage in the search because otherwise it's a Fourth Amendment violation.
Now I pointed this out.
Let's break it all down.
Let's break all of this down.
Hunter Biden reportedly violated federal law by lying on background check.
So you mean to tell me Joe Biden says, we're gonna close loopholes, man, the background checks.
Bro, your own kid just lied on a background check for him to get a gun illegally.
You'd think he would know.
If somebody wants to illegally get a gun, they're going to get it.
What are you going to do about it?
When your own kid... So, I'll tell you this.
Forgive me if I'm not going to take advice from Joe Biden when his own kid lied on his background check.
Now, some people might be saying, Tim, Tim, he didn't lie.
He's not on drugs.
All right.
Here's what the National Review said.
Hunter Biden may have committed a felony offense by lying on a background check before purchasing a gun, Politico reported on Thursday.
Biden answered no in response to the question, are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance as part of the background check?
The check was administered on the firearms transaction record Biden filled out to purchase a .38 revolver on October 12, 2018.
Copies of the transaction record and a receipt of the gun were obtained by Politico for a report on Secret Service agents allegedly intervening after President Biden's daughter-in-law threw the gun into a trash receptacle.
Hunter Biden has battled drug addiction through much of his adult life, and was discharged from the Navy in 2014 after failing a drug test.
The president's son was stopped by police with a crack pipe in his car in 2017, and an assailant aimed a gun at him while he was trying to purchase cocaine in 2016.
Hunter Biden is scheduled to publish a memoir on his struggle with addiction next month.
Federal authorities are currently investigating Hunter Biden's taxes, yada yada, we get it.
Look, maybe you're gonna say, he got off crack.
He stopped smoking it.
Okay, fine.
Maybe.
That's why they say reportedly.
Perhaps it's possible that as soon as one day he just... Here's my question.
Hunter Biden is doing crack.
He's addicted.
We know he is.
One day he says, you know what?
I'm not gonna smoke.
Then he goes into a gun store and says, I'd like to buy a revolver.
And they're like, do you do drugs?
No!
I quit.
When?
Today?
That's the point.
Sure, he can argue.
I haven't done drugs in a little while.
At what point are you illegally allowed to say that you are not an unlawful user of?
Ten minutes afterwards?
What if he smoked that morning and then said, you know what, I quit, I'm done.
And then he went there and said, I'm not an unlawful user of, I quit.
Certainly, there's a certain amount of time.
So, I can only say this, in my opinion, This is a lie.
He is an unlawful user of and addicted to drugs.
It was so bad that he smoked Parmesan cheese.
You think I'm making this up?
I pulled up Snopes for this.
Snopes writes, did Hunter Biden say he smoked Parmesan cheese?
True.
Amazing.
While it was true Hunter Biden said I probably smoked more Parmesan cheese than anyone, his statements implied that he mistook other granular items for the drug during the depths of his crack addiction.
Additionally, it was false to frame that quote as a confession that he sought out and smoked Parmesan cheese specifically to try to get high.
No, no, no, no.
The reality is, dude was such a fiend crack addict that he apparently dug into the carpet and pulled up Parmesan and smoked it.
Man, you want to tell me he's not an addict?
Then he goes and buys a gun?
So Joe Biden's own kid, Joe Biden's own son, and he knows this because we saw the report, Joe Biden ran out in the driveway trying to stage an intervention with Hunter, grabbing him, hugging him, saying like, I don't want to get just, come on, man, you know, stop doing drugs.
I feel bad for him.
I feel bad for the Biden family.
I feel bad because I'm a human.
I have empathy.
I don't like the Biden family.
I think they're bad people.
I think they're some of the worst America has to offer.
Corrupt, crony corporatists.
But I feel bad for a man who lost his son.
His other son's a crackhead.
But Joe Biden wants to come out and tell me he's gonna take away my rights that were granted to me by the Creator, God, or are just inalienable, inherent in all of us, however you want to describe it.
He wants to come and take my rights away.
Talking about all his background check garbage.
Meanwhile, his own son lied, proving something very important.
I get the idea of background checks.
They don't do anything.
Now hold on.
That's a little hyperbolic.
If somebody's a felon, the background check will stop that.
But if someone, you get a list of questions on these NYX forms, and it asks you, like, are you actually buying this gun for yourself?
A criminal is gonna lie.
Hunter Biden lied.
And Joe Biden knows he lied.
And Joe Biden knows his son's a crackhead.
Who bought a gun.
Alright.
Joe, you want me to take you seriously about your statements on the Constitution and all that stuff?
Here's what I want you to do.
I want you to call the DOJ, and I want you to say, please arrest my son for felony, for the felony of lying on a NICS form.
For a background check.
You gonna do that?
You gonna prove to me that the rules matter?
Will you prove to me That the background check system works because Hunter Biden won't get away with saying he's not a drug user when he is?
So don't come to me and tell me what I can or can't do when your own son commits these crimes.
Don't come to me when your son, regardless of the NYX forms, is a crackhead and we all know it.
How about you lock him up for admitting to illegal possession and all his other crimes?
Yeah, these people want to see these inner city kids go to jail for gun possession or for drug use?
Start with your own son.
Then I'll believe you actually care about the American people.
Until then, don't come to me and tell me I give up my rights because elitist people like Joe Biden think they're above the law.
Sorry.
And to all those Democrats who are in favor of this, I'll tell you what.
You want me to have a conversation about gun control and background checks?
I'm all ears.
The moment you come out and say, the first thing we're going to do is sign a petition saying Hunter Biden should be in prison for smoking crack and for illegally buying a gun.
Then we can have a conversation about all of that stuff.
Until then, I think y'all are hypocrites.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
It is a live show, so come and hang out, and we'll see you all then.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen an increase in soft-on-crime prosecutors, a great leftist experiment into bringing in prosecutors who would let people go for smaller, lighter offenses, and since then, we've seen a major uptick in murders, violent crime, and crime in general.
Now, depending on who you ask, some criminologists, some left-wing academics will simply say, it's the pandemic, man.
People, their programs were shut down, schools were shut down, people weren't working, and, you know, idle hands, devil's playground, all that stuff.
Some people became desperate, and thus, we started to see more crime.
But I don't think that explains the reckless violence.
Perhaps, I suppose, if people are occupied with sports or something else, they're less likely to be outside and less likely to engage in some kind of criminal activity.
Sure, I guess the hard numbers show that.
But this is the result of a grand experiment.
Over the past several years, we have seen leftist organizations dump money into district attorney races so their progressive DAs can get in and then drop charges on people because, well, they want to abolish jail, they want to abolish prison.
We're now going to get the true test as to whether the American people, at least in some districts, are willing to accept this or do they really want tough-on-crime DAs.
In my opinion, I have a feeling these leftist district attorneys They might actually lose.
I mean, you look at the Jussie Smollett thing, right?
So you had this Kim Fox, she's apparently one of these progressive DAs who gets elected, and she cuts the guy loose.
She cuts him a deal.
It was a huge outrage, and this dude basically got away with everything.
Who wants to live in a city where you have murders, violence, and then when you get a high-profile hoax or some kind of serious criminal event or crime committed, the DA's like, ah, you're free to go.
Take a look at Portland.
There was a big scandal around the time that Joe Biden got inaugurated.
All of a sudden, we heard that a hundred or so people were having their charges dismissed.
Some felony charges.
Apparently, we have videos of these people.
There's a video of a guy, not wearing a mask, fighting with cops.
And they're like, ah, you can go home, dude.
Don't worry about it.
They dismiss these charges.
We have videos of people engaging in very serious terroristic activity.
I mean, when you throw a firebomb at a federal building, and these people are just cut loose.
Well, I'll tell you one thing.
The leftist tactics that they use to exploit the system, they do work.
Well, they wear masks, they all wear black, and they show up in concert.
And so, in D.C., when they tried prosecuting all of these people for conspiracy, because how else do you get them?
The judge was like, you can't do that.
And these cases got thrown out.
Many of these people, some people took plea deals.
This is a story we have from Politico.
Left-wing prosecutors hit fierce resistance, and uptick in murders across the country is testing their resolve and their electability.
But there's more.
Check this out.
NBC News reports, Baltimore will no longer prosecute drug possession, prostitution, and low-level crimes.
A pandemic experiment in criminal justice reform takes hold in one of America's most violent cities.
Not prosecuting crimes?
Okay, no, no, no.
Hold on, hold on.
I think the war on drugs is bad.
I think people should be allowed, in the privacy of their own home, do their thing, I suppose.
I think that if we do get rid of some of these laws and regulate some of this, you know, possession and drug use better, we actually can get rid of a lot of these crimes.
But low-level crimes in general?
Alright, alright, hold on.
I'm all for like the libertarian idea, little L, of like, you do you, I'll do me, you leave me alone, I leave you alone.
But this idea that you're going to now unilaterally decide, oh, you know what, we're not gonna prosecute crimes.
Now we got a problem.
The problem is, there are laws on the books.
Some of those laws we don't like.
Some of the laws these prosecutors don't like.
You don't get to pick and choose.
Look, we've got gun laws, right?
I think they're all bad.
I think they're ridiculous.
Like how an M1A is an assault weapon in Maryland, but a SCAR-20S isn't!
Okay, for those people who aren't familiar with guns, one's an old wooden stock iron sights rifle, and one's a modern AR-15.
You can put a scope on it and it fires 308 rounds.
Anyway, I digress.
That one gets me.
That one gets me.
The law makes no sense.
Are these prosecutors gonna be like, alright, if the law doesn't make sense, we don't charge people for it?
Here's my point.
Crime is going up.
Whatever they're doing isn't working.
Now, they can blame the pandemic, they can blame whatever they want, but this experiment didn't work.
Now, I think people are innocent until proven guilty, so there's a serious problem here.
You arrest someone because you've seen them commit a crime, but you gotta prove to the court, you gotta prove to the people, it's tough.
It really is.
But propping up leftist, progressive, critical race theorist prosecutors who pick and choose for political reasons who's gonna get in trouble, we can't have none of that.
You can't have a DA be like, this arbitrary gun law, we're gonna enforce and lock you up, but that dude who's doing drugs and prostituting, he's fine.
No.
I might say, you know, in my opinion, Many of these laws need to be repealed, and people shouldn't be in prison for these things.
But how are you going to supersede the system itself, overrule the system itself?
Herein lies the problem.
So the other day, I had Brandon Tatum on, the officer Tatum, you might know him, and we both kind of agreed on this point.
Even though I might be like, dude, people should be allowed to do drugs if they want, as long as they're not violent, we agreed on the point that We're a society.
We live in a society, okay?
This means that we all kind of disagree with each other and agree with each other on different things.
We vote for reps, the reps pass legislation, and there you go, you got a law.
If we're getting unfair treatment, if we're getting prosecutors who are saying, anti-fund these violent extremists, you're good to go, we're not going to charge you, but oh heavens, that guy had a bump stock.
No, you see the problem here?
Either we enforce the rules fairly and we recognize where we disagree with each other but we're willing to compromise, or you get leftist prosecutors who say, our people will be free to go and you will rot.
We can't have that.
The experiment has failed, and it was obvious from the get-go it wasn't going to work.
Watching these Antifa people have their charges dropped by these progressives is psychotic.
Meanwhile, what's going on with the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th?
Some of these people are now reporting that they're being tortured and beaten.
In one story from Politico, there was a guy who apparently was upset they didn't get a pillow, so they took him out back behind a camera and beat the crap out of him.
We can't have that.
I don't care who you are or what you did.
Guards should not be beating you.
All right?
But if you've got this political landscape, where you got people who are storming the Capitol or whatever, and they're being put in isolation, near solitary confinement, and they're being beaten.
And then you got Antifa literally firebombing federal buildings.
One's an insurrection and one isn't.
Get out of here, man.
We got problems.
Because if you keep going this route, people are going to lose their minds.
But I'll tell you what.
The left is organized.
The right?
Not so much.
And I mean, that's the thing about collectivists versus individualists.
The left is willing to... I mean, I think the establishment, they've got no principles, no morals, and they'll weaponize whatever they can.
The leftists see that as a means to destroy their political rivals on the right.
So they're all just willing to work together, no matter how vile.
Meanwhile, on the right, people are just saying, leave me alone.
I don't want to be involved.
No surprise.
So long as good men do nothing, evil will prevail.
Well, here's the story from Politico.
They say, Larry Krasner's election in 2017 was a triumph for progressives nationwide.
The man who had sued cops 75 times, represented Black Lives Matter, promised to end cash bail, and was widely seen as the most liberal district attorney candidate in the country won.
Bravo progresses.
Bravo.
Oh, what's this?
Four years later, Philadelphia's top prosecutor and one of the leading figures of the country's criminal justice reform is under siege.
Homicides are skyrocketing in the city and local officials are grumbling.
A former assistant DA backed by the local police union is challenging Krasner in the May primary.
And in recent weeks, the Philadelphia Democratic Party broke with years of tradition and declined to endorse the incumbent.
The progressive experiment has failed, my friends.
It's worse than ever.
The primary battle is a test of whether the left can maintain its successful campaign electing progressive district attorneys amid an uptick in murders in cities around the country.
If Krasner wins, it could signal the arrival of a new era, one in which the public doesn't recoil from liberal criminal justice policy, even when crime stats go up.
If he fails, it will be a jolt for politically beleaguered police unions and a sudden halt to what has been a steady shift leftward in urban DA races.
I would just like to point out, you know what?
I lived in the Philly suburbs for a while.
I left.
I don't care.
You vote for whoever you want to vote for.
If you live in one of these big cities and you got murders on the rise, one of the reasons I left is because right around the time, you know, Right around the time we were talking about getting out, some dude holds up a building and shoots a bunch of cops.
Riots happen, three people get shot.
I understand it's cities, okay?
But I'm like, come on.
I left Chicago.
I don't want to come back to a place like this.
I'll go to the middle of nowhere.
Granted, my allergies have been awful because there's trees everywhere in the mountains.
But I'm kidding.
I don't care about the allergies.
I'm more worried about whether or not someone's going to randomly just shoot somebody else.
And that's what's happening.
I don't want to be there.
So you know what?
I left.
If you want to vote for a DA who isn't tough on crime, And I'm talking about violent murders and shootings and hostages and all that stuff.
Okay, you do your thing.
You want to live in a city where you have more crime?
Go for it.
Vote for these people, you have my blessing.
Because I don't want to be there.
And you know what's going to happen?
A lot of people don't want to be there either.
And these cities are going to be in trouble.
So you know what?
I guess the cities will rot and decay because ignorant, lazy people who are not responsible will vote for a DA who's like, what's this guy been arrested for?
Because it disproportionately affects poor people.
A rich person can pay their bail.
You know, even if the judge is like, okay, we'll set a bond at a hundred thousand, the rich person's like, no problem for me.
And if there's a poor person, they're like, bonds at a thousand bucks, they're like, dude, I don't have that.
What am I supposed to do?
Go to jail.
You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Holding someone who has not been proven guilty and it destroys their life, I got a problem with that.
It's not an easy Problem to solve.
It's not.
Because sometimes, like, there's video of the person doing it.
And so maybe there's a good reason why the judge is like, listen, I know we haven't proven you guilty yet, but I see you on video beating someone.
We're gonna hold you in jail until the trial.
I don't know what you do, man.
So it's really easy for me to complain.
I will absolutely concede that.
It is very easy for me to complain and say, oh, we gotta be tough on crime.
But I don't like authoritarianism.
I don't want prosecutors and, you know, arbitrarily charging people.
I don't.
The system needs some kind of reform.
But I'll tell you, these leftists, the bigger issue I have is the political favoritism.
This is the problem.
In these areas, they absolutely play favorites politically.
They're going to say, his re-election means everything, said Sean King, a civil rights advocate and former surrogate for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.
Oh yes, ever the great speaker on behalf of the progressive left in Black Lives Matter, Sean King.
No, they really don't like the guy.
We always knew that Larry, a lifelong civil rights attorney, would come in and change the system from the inside out, and that doing so would make him a major target.
Oh, I don't know, maybe it's the rise in murders in the city that he's in.
Okay?
Krasner isn't the only big city progressive prosecutor meeting fierce resistance.
In California, both San Francisco DA Chesa Bowden and in LA, George Gascon are facing recall efforts.
Talk about a failure.
Opponents of the left-wing DAs have accused them of letting criminals loose on the streets and turning a blind eye to victims.
All criticisms lobbed at Krasner too.
You quite literally have two DAs in California and they're trying to get— people are trying to recall them.
Grasner has framed his re-election campaign as a choice between the future and the past.
A past that echoes with names like Frank Rizzo, Philly's former tough-on-crime, racially polarizing mayor, as he put it at a recent candidates' forum.
He says that he delivered on his campaign promises by lowering the jail population, exonerating the innocent, and reducing the amount of time people are on probation and parole.
Hold on.
Probation and parole, I got no issue with.
Let people out, let them work, and they call in and they talk about, yeah, here's what I did, here's why I'm working.
That makes sense to me.
Lowering the jail population isn't necessarily a good thing.
That reminds me of The Avengers with Ultron, where it's like, you know, you've seen the movie, I'm sure.
Ultron is a robot designed to stop war and protect humanity, bring about peace and all that, and you realize, hey, like most tropes with AI, I know how to bring about peace.
Kill all the humans!
Yeah, there's no humans, there's no war, right?
Right.
Well, if you let the criminals out of jail, you've lowered the population.
Congratulations!
You've lowered the jail population.
That's not necessarily a good thing.
The United States incarcerates far too many people.
We have stupid laws in the books, and we need to start respecting people's right to bear arms and the right to consume things if they so choose.
But when it comes to violent crimes, Just this arbitrary notion of like, I'll get less people in jail.
That's stupid.
We have issues.
This is not changing anything.
They say, he has taken attack against his Democratic challenger, ex-homicide prosecutor Carlos Vega, who was among the group of employees he fired when he became DA.
That once might have been unthinkable.
Krasner is using the local police union as a foil and reminding voters that Vega is endorsed by the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, whose national union endorsed former President Trump.
As for the spike in homicides, they are up 29% compared with this time in 2020, which was the most violent year in three decades.
Krasner blames large societal forces.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Surprise, surprise.
Crime is higher than it's been in 30 years.
It's not my fault.
I don't care.
If it's a pandemic.
I don't care if there's no schools.
You, the buck stops with you.
If you can't handle changes to society due to pandemics, you should not be a leader.
We can easily point out, okay, with no school, people are out in the streets.
With no jobs, people are broke.
Shouldn't a DA be able to handle these things?
Shouldn't the police be able to account for emergencies?
You want to be in charge?
And a pandemic happens, and you can't deal with it?
Then you should not be the DA.
This stupid experiment has failed, and we're all watching it fail across the country.
Now, I don't want to act like it's only the progressives that are struggling to deal with this.
It's true for basically anybody.
We're watching crime skyrocket across the board.
It is likely due to many of these factors.
But don't come out and make excuses.
You know what I'd say?
If I was the DA, I'd say, listen, they're academics, they're reports, they're criminologists, they say that a lot of the crime we're seeing is due to the pandemic, and I hope you all understand that.
However, you elected somebody to deal with crime in all circumstances, regardless of what was the cause, and it's gone up, and that's on me.
Take some responsibility.
No, here's what we get.
Quote, Krasner's blaming societal forces.
What has happened, and essentially every criminologist agrees, is the pandemic, closing of society, and closing of so many different aspects of what protects and surrounds especially young men, have disappeared.
So in every single city you have the elimination of high schoolers being in classrooms, at least for periods of time, summer camp, job programs, swimming pools, recreation centers, organized sports in school, organized sports out of school, and after school programs.
That's all true.
Okay, I can respect that.
100% I can.
And then he should take responsibility for being unable to adjust to or to adapt to these crime rates to do anything about it.
No, he's lowered the jail population at a time when a pandemic is resulting in a massive spike in crime.
That doesn't make sense.
I'm sorry.
In a demonstration of how much the Democratic Party has moved left on criminal justice issues, Vega is not actually campaigning as a tough-on-crime politician.
He talks about diversionary programs and prohibiting cash bail for low-level offenders.
And his website promises to deliver real progressive reform.
His pitch in his launch video is that we don't have to choose between safety and reform, and he places the wave of murder squarely on Krasner's shoulders.
I think the large amount of people want common sense reform.
They want that middle ground where we're aware that communities of color are suffering with respect to violence, but also communities of color are suffering the most with respect to lack of opportunity.
I respect that.
They say murders rose last year in cities around the country, big and small, suggesting that local explanations alone cannot explain the phenomenon.
Asked whether it is fair to blame Krasner amid a national trend, Vega said, The issue is what's happening to our community, our city.
He cannot, and I cannot, address all the ills happening across the nation.
Bravo, good sir!
You see, that makes sense.
I'm not gonna sit here and talk about New York City when I'm here in Philadelphia.
I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna do about the crime here in this city.
Yeah, the progressives, oh, don't look at me, the nation is bad.
The Krasner's approach of declining to accept any blame whatsoever has rubbed some voters and party officials the wrong way.
The politically influential Democratic Ward leaders who declined to endorse Krasner were frustrated that there's an epidemic of gun violence here.
Everybody's been touched by this, and Krasner takes no responsibility.
At times, the election has gotten personal.
Vega, who is Latino, called Krasner's likening him to Trump, really rich, when this is coming from a person who's white, elite, from an Ivy League school.
Krasner said Vega never championed reform while in the DA's office, and that he is doing what all kinds of people do during election cycles, which is they will say anything, they read the polls first.
You know what?
Sure.
What do you think you're doing?
I can't stand any of these people.
Krasner's campaign said he brought in more than $420,000 during the first three months of the year, while Vega's team said he reaped in almost $340,000 in 2020.
Vega kept pace with Krasner's fundraising.
You know what I'm going to tell you?
You want to vote for that, you want to support that, I don't care.
Okay, I'm not here to tell you who to vote for.
I'm going to tell you my opinion.
And then I'm going to tell you, you vote for a DA that can't handle these murders and they're soft on crime because they want to lower the prison population regardless of what that really means.
Hey man, that's your right.
That's how the democratic institutions work.
You get a guy who comes out and says, here's what I want to do, and you're like, I like that.
Good.
And then, you know, if you get murdered or robbed or whatever, you understand that that's what you voted for.
And I'm not saying that to be spiteful, I'm saying quite literally, you take the risks.
If you truly believe in these progressive values, and you know murders are on the rise, this guy's not doing anything about it.
Okay, then just keep that in mind.
If I were to vote for that, and I walk around, and then, you know, somebody murders, I'll be like, well, I voted for it.
If I vote for somebody, Who says, I think everybody in the country should own a Barrett M82, 50 BMG, semi-auto, whatever.
And I said, I vote for that.
And then some guy pulls out, you know, is driving around with a Barrett M82 or whatever, I'm like, I voted for that.
If someone, you know, if we reduce gun control, and then I see negative impacts of it, I accept that.
Now, I happen to believe, for the most part, you won't, because law-abiding citizens don't break the law.
The example I like to give is, You got people driving around in cars, and when you cross the street, people put the brakes on for you.
You jaywalk, someone will put the brakes on.
They'll try not to hit you, but sometimes accidents happen.
You come out to the country and you see people with guns, they never pull out their gun on you because, just like people driving cars, they don't want to hurt you.
So I happen to think, you know what?
I don't think we need a lot of these gun control laws.
Now, when it comes to murderers and criminals, people who are career criminals, you say, if we just stop putting these people in jail, then everything will be better.
It's like, OK, well, if you let somebody go who commits crimes, they're going to commit more crimes.
You see what I'm saying?
It's weird that the Democrats are like, this person committed a crime and they should be free to go.
This person is a law-abiding gun owner.
We should take his guns away.
How does any of this make sense?
It's a stupid experiment that we're seeing fail.
And just last July 30th, look at this from Fox News, DAs backed by Soros and other liberal activists join the fray in the clash with police.
Under the radar, political investments made by progressive groups in recent years are paying off.
Congratulations, you got riots, you got vandalism, you got fires.
Democrats literally defend criminals.
And try to punish law-abiding citizens.
Talk about the stupidest policy position you could hold.
I don't want the innocent to suffer.
Even low-level crimes, you know, cash bail I think is a problem.
But I'll tell you this.
Democrats are the party of, if you're a law-abiding gun owner, we're gonna blame you for everything someone else did.
And if you're a criminal, we're literally gonna just let you go!
So what happens then when some crazy right-wing Trump supporter guy shows up with a gun?
Oh, we know what happens.
Insurrection.
They lock him up, they beat him up, they throw away the key.
That's the main problem.
A progressive DA will not uphold the law fairly.
Or at least, I will say, it doesn't seem to be the case.
The experiment has failed.
And I think we can all see it.
I'm sick of this.
We're all sick of this.
We can have reforms.
We can have real conversations.
But if you can't deal with a rise in crime, you should not be in office.
So maybe this other guy will win.
I think he's still a Democrat.
It's a Democrat city.
But you know what?
You can be A reformer, you can talk about solving these problems and still recognize the police are not all evil people.
What people need to understand about all cops is that we as a society balance what each of us want.
We vote for representatives, we pass laws, and we don't agree on basically anything.
Like, not one person agrees with every other person.
So the police have to enforce things neutrally, and that's never perfect, and it leads to problems, and we ask cops to do it.
So we need reform.
This is stupid.
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.
The media did everything in its power to smear Marjorie Taylor Greene.
And apparently it all backfired because now she is reporting that she brought in $3.2 million in the first quarter, which is nearly five times more than AOC raised in her first three months.
AOC raised $728,000.
The media was smearing Marjorie Taylor Greene because they needed a boogeyman.
Donald Trump was out.
They needed something to represent Trumpism.
But nobody really cares all that much about a freshman congresswoman except her supporters.
So the more the media piled on the smears and the lies, the more Marjorie Taylor Greene made money.
Let's be honest.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is absolutely deserving of criticism, and she even apologized for this.
There's not much I can say after that.
She posted really crazy things.
I think she deserves criticism.
And she came out and apologized and said she posted crazy things.
What do you do after that?
The thing with AOC is that I've tried to be nice to her as well.
When she does good things, I will give her credit.
When she says things about, you know, opposing authoritarianism or big tech surveillance, I'm like, awesome!
Thank you, AOC.
You know, she did this thing where she like briefly teamed up with Ted Cruz to fight the revolving door of lobbying and things like that, and I'm like, I'll give credit where credit is due.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Marjorie Taylor Greene posted really crazy things.
I'm trying to keep things family-friendly.
Crazy, crazy things.
Well, when someone apologizes for that, I still have to consider whether or not they believe the crazy things and they're just apologizing because they have to, or if they finally realize, hey, maybe those things are actually crazy.
At the very least, I will give her an opportunity to redeem herself.
I did the same for AOC.
The problem is, I genuinely believe AOC is evil.
Oh, I know.
Cue the left saying Tim is biased.
AOC claimed Donald Trump was operating concentration camps for kids.
Under Joe Biden, she now refers to these as influx facilities with controversial records.
That's a very big difference.
I wonder why AOC no longer cares that they're running concentration camps.
Maybe she never did in the first place.
And maybe Though Marjorie Taylor Greene may say crazy things, people believe her to be genuine, I suppose.
Or people are just looking for their version of AOC, their fighter.
AOC is a fighter, and she's extremely talented.
AOC is one of the most talented social media people in the world.
She will go down, in my opinion, as a marketing master.
I wouldn't be surprised if after she gets out of politics, she goes and runs the marketing department for some major corporation.
Because you can be mad about her politics, you can think she's duplicitous and all that stuff, but man does she know how to run social media.
So here's what I put on Twitter.
I respond to this story with a ha ha ha ha ha because it's very funny.
The midwits of the left all of a sudden are acting like I'm supporting the fact that these congressional races are being fueled by external donors.
You want to know why I find this hilarious?
Because when AOC rakes in $720,000 from external sources and many large donors, where's the Bernie Sanders crew?
Where's the Bernie Sanders crew to be like Tom Steyer's dumping money in all these races?
Many Bernie supporters did bring it up.
I'm not saying all of them.
I'm saying many of these tribalist midwits on Twitter don't seem to care that AOC wins her race by the good graces of those in Hollywood and Chicago outside of her district.
I don't like it.
So I laugh.
You know why?
They hate Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The media smears Marjorie Taylor Greene.
I absolutely despise the fact that people who don't live in that district are funding her or anybody else.
AOC, MTG, Rand Paul, anybody.
I say Rand Paul because I like Rand Paul.
But him getting money from outside the state, I'm not a fan of.
But you know what, they say free speech and I say, alright, alright, I get it, I get it.
I just don't like the idea that someone who doesn't live in the district is influencing how people vote in that district.
I think it causes a lot of problems, but how you solve for something like that, I don't know if you actually can.
The point is, so long as the game is afoot, When the establishment, to a certain degree, gives AOC a free pass, while mostly I should say AOC's becoming a lackey stooge for the establishment, then all of a sudden it's okay that she's making all this money from outside her district.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, they love to hate her.
Good.
She's gonna make all this money in the same way?
Maybe this will be the situation that forces the establishment to be like, okay, maybe we should do something about campaign finance reform.
Let's read the story, and I'll tell you, let's go through why I'm not going to scream and cry about AOC getting, you know, I'm not going to laugh about AOC.
Let me put it this way.
When they say, why aren't you furious and outraged at Marjorie Taylor Greene making all this money?
She made so much more than AOC.
I tell you, because Marjorie Taylor Greene is marginalized by the media, marginalized by social media, ridiculed and mocked, and poses no real threat to people in this country.
She may have crazy ideas, she apologized, but maybe she still believes them.
But when you look at AOC, who's got 12.6 million followers on Twitter, she is a much more serious threat to our government, to our country and our society.
Look, I can say she does nice things, but when she comes out with this concentration camp thing, I'm like, this is a big, big problem.
Now, I'll stop there and say this.
It is a problem that either of the candidates is raising tons of money from outside their district, in my opinion.
Here's a story from the Daily Mail.
They say, Marjorie Taylor Greene's campaign raked in an eye-popping $3.2 million in their first quarter of 2021, a sign that the freshman congresswoman from Georgia may have actually benefited from the backlash over her controversial remarks.
Green's campaign announced its massive first quarter windfall in a press release on Wednesday, noting that the money came from more than 100,000 individual contributions in all 50 states.
Not a fan.
I like the idea that it came from small donors, $32 per person.
I don't like the idea that she's running for Congress in a district and has all of these people from across the country funneling money into her race.
She's in a safe red seat.
That's my understanding.
So she doesn't necessarily need the money.
But you know what?
If the media wants to play dirty games, so be it.
She said, over 100,000 donors poured in over $3.2 million to support me, averaging $32 per donation.
You know why?
I stood my ground and never wavered in my belief in America First policies and putting people over politicians, Green boasted on Twitter.
And I will never back down.
As a matter of fact, I'm just getting started.
By comparison, fellow headline-grabbing rep AOC raised $720,000 for her campaign in her first quarter in office in 2019.
Green crashed into Congress this year and quickly built up a reputation for her fringe beliefs, including her support for QAnon theories and her suggestion that school... Alright.
Crazy, crazy things.
Democrats staging things for gun control.
Just a few weeks into her term, Greenface fevered calls for her to resign.
After it was revealed she'd liked a number of social media posts encouraging violence against Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.
I want to be careful with things like that.
I'd like to see exactly what the tweets were.
In February, she was stripped of her committee assignments in a House floor vote, where 11 Republicans joined Democrats to vote her off 230 to 199.
However, Green's fundraising numbers show that those controversies didn't make a dent in her donations and possibly bolstered them.
Well, what can I say?
I can talk about how I don't like this system, but good.
You want to play dirty games?
Well, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
They say Green leaned into the controversies in fundraising appeals, saying that they showed her dedication to shaking up Washington.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
In her statement on Wednesday, Green declared, for too long, the political ruling class that looks down on the rest of us have been selling out America to the world by whipping the backs of hard-working American worker and taxpayer.
But they fear one thing.
The political ruling class fears the people because it's the people that can take away what they love most, power.
That's the power that brings them everything else.
I am one of the people, and the people are with me, and I will always be with them.
Green is over a year and a half away from facing re-election in Georgia's 14th district, but the early funds will come in handy should she face a challenge from more moderate Republicans and critics of Donald Trump, whom she has aligned herself with.
GOP Rep Adam Kinzinger Let me stop right there and say, dude, might as well be a Democrat.
Of Illinois.
Has already vowed to help prevent Greene's re-election.
Yeah, see?
And said he's willing to use his own funding to do so.
This guy is just the worst grifter ever.
He's a Democrat.
Vote that guy out.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has her problems.
I think she's deserving of criticism for a lot of reasons, but I'm fairly neutral.
I am, I know.
Why?
Well, she apologized for her statements.
Before she apologized, I was extremely negative on Marjorie Taylor Greene, thinking she was a crazy crackpot.
Apologizing was a good first step.
Now I'm in neutral territory where I'm like, okay, show me what you can do.
You apologized, I accept it.
When Joey Salads apologized, I'll accept it.
If AOC comes out and apologizes, I'll accept it as well.
And I try really, really hard to make sure I'm talking about the good things AOC does when she does it, because I don't want to always be negative.
Right now, I think Lauren Boebert's great, actually.
Staunch 2A.
I love it.
So, well, that's just the story with Marjorie Taylor Greene here.
They show her tweets from this point on.
But I want to highlight my concerns with the establishment and why AOC is a bigger risk, in my opinion.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, they're going to come out and say is dangerous, she's a Trumpist, she's a QAnon supporter, and all that stuff.
I look at AOC and I see something very dangerous.
She is a political elite wearing a working-class mask.
She flip-flops her opinion, whatever the tribe wants to hear.
I can't believe, you know, the concentration camp thing was absurd as it was.
For her to come out now and defend the Biden administration, what she said was, well, you know, Biden reopened these facilities, but the difference is he's trying to solve the problem.
You know what, man?
I can't believe there are people who get, who get tricked by this stuff.
Let me show you something.
Marjorie Taylor Greene on Twitter.
392,600 followers.
That's a lot of followers.
Good for her.
Who's a bigger threat?
Her or AOC with 12.6 million followers?
Now to be fair, AOC has been in office a bit longer.
She's in her second term now.
So she's had more time to build up the following.
When she got elected, she had a similar amount of followers.
So maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene will Absolutely.
Chase after AOC, just a couple years behind, and end up with tens of millions of followers.
For the time being, I'm not going to cry about a lady who gets elected in a safe red district and who said crazy things that she apologized for.
There's a lot of things you can criticize her for.
Fine.
She's not even sitting on any committees.
AOC is powerful, prominent, and one of the leaders in the Democratic Party.
She lies all the time.
It's what she does.
Like her mouth opens, it just...
Garbage flies out.
She actually had the nerve to go on Instagram and be like, There's no migrant crisis.
It's an imperialism crisis.
Okay, that's just... She's just saying whatever she has to say to gain power.
Think about it this way.
AOC is a liar.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a true believer.
Well, you know, I can see problems with either.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, if she truly believes all this crazy stuff and she's fighting for the revolution or something like that, yeah, that's crazy.
AOC lying about everything she says is really, really bad.
And then you gotta figure out who you think is worse.
You know, I asked Michael Malice this, and it's a tough question to answer.
With the liar, you'll at least get some function of what people are asking for.
We demand healthcare.
It's like, okay, well, I'm gonna give them what they want regardless of whether it works.
The crazy person wants to build a, you know, rocket ship to the moon to, like, chase down moon creatures or some other nonsense.
I'm not saying she actually believes that.
Marjorie Taylor Greene might end up launching investigations into intelligence agencies, and I'm kind of like, I mean, somebody who believes crazy conspiracies probably will only discover their crazy conspiracy is not true, and then end up uncovering some other malfeasance, or at least putting some scrutiny on law enforcement.
So, look, long story short, tough question.
But let me show you.
Twitter mistakenly suspends Marjorie Taylor Greene again.
Mistakenly?
Again?
Come on.
It's not a mistake.
AOC doesn't get suspended, and she posts insane psychobabble.
Marjorie Taylor Greene gets suspended.
Because they're biased.
That's just it.
The AP reported this a couple days ago.
The Georgia Republican, who has in the past promoted violence against Democrats and conspiracy theories, was unable to post to her account during the hours-long suspension.
The suspension occurred after Green tweeted about Easter and retweeted a post about abortion.
Twitter confirmed it was a mistake.
No, listen, it's not mistakes.
It's like, semantically, you can call it a mistake.
What they should be saying is that a rogue employee doesn't like Republicans and bans them.
And then when we realize they shouldn't have done that, They flipped it back.
It was a mistake.
No, it was an intentional act by an individual.
Is that it?
That's probably what's happening in my opinion.
I don't know for sure.
They say, Green's account was suspended for about 12 hours last month, and what the company also said was a mistake.
Oh, again, Twitter declined to respond publicly when asked why Green's account had been affected by the glitch twice.
Cause it's not a glitch.
Green rejected Twitter's explanation.
Twitter suspended me again by mistake after I tweeted, he is risen.
She wrote on Twitter, everyone knows it's a lie and it was no mistake.
Green, who has nearly 400,000 Twitter followers, has said most of her controversial posts were
written before she was elected and that she no longer supports QAnon, the baseless belief that...
I'm not reading this.
This is too stupid even for the AP to post, so please AP, just... Geez.
A message left at Greene's office was not immediately returned on Monday.
Okay.
Well, let's get down to campaign finance.
Good for Marjorie Taylor Greene, good for AOC.
They raise a lot of money.
I don't like the idea.
I have complained repeatedly that AOC has, you know, she gets elected because people outside her district give her money.
So when we find out that Marjorie Taylor Greene raises five times as much, I laugh about it.
Maybe y'all should have listened to me when I said it's bad AOC is raising money outside her district.
Nah.
I don't care.
Because it gives them power in Congress.
Well, Live by the sword, right?
You want these policies?
Then don't be surprised when Marjorie Taylor Greene raises more money.
I don't care if it's Marjorie Taylor Greene or AOC.
I think that people who live in a district are supposed to be voting for someone to represent them.
And it's a very serious problem when AOC wins a race in her district because people in her district were manipulated by external forces dumping money to make sure that certain ideas become prevalent.
It's ridiculous.
Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, can flood every district with money to make sure anti-gun rights individuals get elected.
Well, I think people have a right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Constitution.
Yet these people who make their money in New York and L.A.
and whatever, will come to rural districts, flood the zone with money, so that people believe insane things, so they vote for insane people.
I'm not a fan.
Not at all.
I brought the receipts.
The New York Times.
If AOC is so heavily favored, why has her race drawn $30 million?
This story is from October 24th, 2020.
And it's from this past election.
They point out $30 million go into this district.
Because people are trying to steal power.
So the millionaires and the billionaires in this country, no matter where they're from, can fine someone in a district, just give them so much money, a regular person from that district would never win.
It's not just about convincing people to vote against their interests.
It's about lying about other people.
Let's say you actually live in the Bronx.
You actually live there.
How many people do you think live in the Bronx, don't like AOC, and wish they had the ability to run against her?
A lot.
The problem?
They can't.
AOC comes in, and she says all this hippy-dippy nonsense and socialist nonsense, and political ideologues from outside the district flood money to her, and then she uses that and her social media savvy to make sure locals don't stand a chance.
Now, she's the absentee congresswoman.
I mean, a lot of people, there's been videos from conservatives where they go there and they ask her, have you seen AOC?
And they're like, nah.
I haven't seen her ever.
We don't even know what she does.
Now, maybe that's not fair.
Maybe there's just 720,000 people in this district, so they're not gonna see her.
It is what it is.
But people apparently went near her home, and they were like, no, we never see her outside.
Okay, still, maybe people just don't see her.
Or maybe too much of our politics at the federal level has become less about representing where we live and more about just gaining power for the party.
That's what I can't stand.
AOC gets support from people who don't live in her district.
She uses all of that money to run ads, smearing her opponents, propping herself up, and then people vote for her with the resources provided by people who don't live there.
Regular working class person in the Bronx works at a bodega is not going to have the resources to convince 100,000 people, 50,000 people, or even 10,000 people.
They can do everything.
They can take time off work.
They can volunteer.
They can go door-to-door.
But when you got a billionaire like Tom Steyer, when you got California millionaires and billionaires saying, we want to win, so they dump money into a district like AOC's, I don't like it because now the working class people of that district, that little bit of money they have to have their voice heard is just drowned out by Hollywood millionaires and billionaires.
Now that's true for Marjorie Taylor Greene as well.
I don't like it.
I want the people who live there to have real conversations and talk amongst each other about what they should or should not be doing and who they should or shouldn't be voting for.
Instead, it's just a big national game, a big national popularity contest, and in my opinion, it results in a corruption of the political system.
Because now it's not about representing districts.
AOC is supposed to represent her district.
Her district says, this is the kind of policy we want.
Instead, you get a bunch of people manipulated by millionaires and billionaires and big special interests, and then AOC just votes whatever she wants to vote for.
It sucks.
The other thing you see that really bothers me is when people like AOC talk about how they're helping their district.
Bro, you're not supposed to.
You're not a local politician.
You're supposed to represent your district at the federal level.
So it was always bothersome to me when you see these Congress people being like, and Republicans too, Democrats and Republicans alike, will be like, look what's happening to our district.
Vote for me and I'll help it.
It's like, dude, no, you're a federal level politician.
I vote for you.
You go and vote on whether or not the U.S.
goes to war, not whether or not we're going to get our streets fixed in this city.
Now granted, even at the federal level you can vote for things to allocate funds to certain areas, that I understand.
But it's one big game.
It's one big manipulation.
And so you know what?
If you want to smear Marjorie Taylor Greene and you want to play dirty games and you want to prop up AOC, well then you reap what you sow.
And don't come crying to me, expecting me to throw Marjorie Taylor Greene out with the bathwater, because you ain't throwing out AOC!
If AOC got kicked off her committees, I'd be like, well, you know, fair's fair.
If Ilhan Omar, well, fair's fair.
No.
Democrats don't do it.
You got Republican defectors, though.
You got people like Adam Kinzinger.
That guy needs to get voted out.
You know who else needs to be voted out is Manchin in West Virginia.
I don't know how they keep electing a Democrat.
That seems weird.
But you know, I will say, it's probably good, I guess, that Manchin is in, because he's a moderate Democrat and he's going to hold them back a little bit, but I think he'll get voted out, and I think the Democrats will go further and further left, and I think that this system's not going to change because it's a runaway train.
There's no one person who can just decide how the system should or shouldn't be, and there's not going to be any agreements on how we should change it, and I really doubt there's going to be unity for a convention of states to alter the Constitution.
I think we're well past that point.
We're at the point now where this is the way the game is played, and for all the complaints I can make, it won't matter.
That's why I laugh.
That's why I laugh when I see that Marjorie Taylor Greene made 3.2 million dollars.
But I'll tell you this.
The media, they're stoked about this.
They love it.
They're getting their boogeyman.
You know, they tried villainizing her.
It didn't work.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Maybe this is good news.
Now they're gonna say, you see?
We warned you!
We told you how dangerous she was!
Now she has 3.2 million dollars!
And they'll use that.
No matter what Marjorie Taylor Greene says, no matter what she apologizes for, they won't let go because they need to make money and get clicks.
