S5136 - Capitol Police EXPANDING Around US Using 1/6 As Excuse For Power, Democrats Push For NATIONAL Police
Capitol Police EXPANDING Around US Using 1/6 As Excuse For Power, Democrats Push For NATIONAL Police.
Democrats have been pushing for a national police force and many conservatives have feared that the BLM riots and calls to defund the police were just an effort to take power away from local jurisdictions and to create a federal police force around the country.
As the capitol police announce they are setting up offices on the east and west coast this may actually be the case, the trump supporters may have been right all along.
#Democrats
#BLMRiots
#DefundThePolice
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
saying they want to pivot to an intelligence-based protective agency.
Could this be the move to create a federalized or national police force?
Well, Democrats certainly want this to happen and have tried this in the past.
Our next story, CNN in a desperate push for ratings claims Tucker Carlson is the new Alex Jones.
Even though only a few months ago they said he was the new Donald Trump.
Yeah, they're desperate.
AT&T may be about to sell their HQ, which is bad, bad news for CNN.
And in our last segment, a Democrat, former governor of Virginia, says he wishes it was easier to vote than it is to buy a gun.
But he owns guns, so he's lying.
And he knows it.
I'm gonna say something bold.
Owning a gun is more important than voting, but hear me out.
I'm gonna explain to you why, and it's actually really simple.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show, share the show with your friends, and give us 5 stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Since the beginning of the Defund the Police movement, or the Abolish the Police movement, there have been many people arguing the real goal here was to federalize or nationalize police, so that local jurisdictions would have less control over what their police do.
That may be the case.
Some said that they were going to bring in the National Guard and have them effectively police the streets.
But it may actually be that there's going to be some kind of federalization of local policing, at least at the intelligence level.
We're now learning that the Capitol Police are setting up field offices around the U.S.
Why?
Well, they've got to hunt down the dangerous rioters from January 6th.
And of course, this may evolve into something else.
I have a prediction.
It could be wrong.
I'm not saying I'm reading the future or guaranteeing this will happen.
But I believe there's a strong possibility that once the Capitol Police finish their investigation of the Capitol rioters, they will say, well, now we need to look at some of the people who supported the Capitol riot.
We need to start looking at those who were on the periphery, who maybe didn't go to D.C., but provided material support to those who did.
In which case, the Capitol Police will evolve into something entirely different.
Perhaps an intelligence-based protective agency is one way to call it.
In fact, that's literally what they're calling themselves now.
As the Capitol Police begin to expand and go after more people around the country with these new field offices, they're saying they want to pivot.
So perhaps that is the end result.
Perhaps defund the police was less relevant, and the real goal is to have some kind of national-level control over local-level politics.
This should be worrying.
The war on terror, as we've seen over the past several decades, is coming home.
Of course, a lot of people have criticized this, but I think we're only just now seeing the beginning of how bad it's really going to be.
The Biden administration is saying things like white supremacy in the far right are the real threats.
They completely ignore all of the damage and the rioting from the far leftists demanding we defund or abolish the police.
Perhaps because it's a twofold assault.
Propaganda, physical assault as well, but twofold in the sense that you've got The attack on the Capitol, the riot, being really, really bad, but being used as a justification as the mainstream media rams this down our throats, claiming that it was the worst attack on the U.S.
since the Civil War.
That's at least what many prominent Democrats are saying.
And in the meantime, Antifa acts a fool, rampages through cities, burns down buildings, along with Black Lives Matter, and many on the left support the actions, be it Kamala Harris seeking to bail out some of these people, and then you have a complete demoralization of local police,
And a bolstering of the Capitol Police.
You see how that works?
At the local level, police have their hands tied behind their backs by progressive DAs.
In San Francisco, where crime is so bad, 40% of people polled in SF say they are planning on leaving because of crime and the quality of life declining.
In Chesapeake, the progressive DA says it's just because they're racist.
So there you have it.
The progressive DAs come in, let criminals get away with it, the police feel like they can't do anything, so they stop doing anything or start quitting, resigning en masse.
And then in D.C., the Capitol Police say, we need more resources to go after this true extremist threat and now we must expand around the U.S.
Pay attention to this.
I could be wrong about all of it.
Maybe they're just some field offices.
Or perhaps in 10 or 20 years, the Capitol Police will have a new name or the same name.
And they'll be in every state.
And they'll be run by the federal government.
And they will supersede what the states can do and what the states want.
Right now, it's long been said the Feds have little power to do anything, especially with the Second Amendment sanctuary zones.
I think around two-thirds of all counties in the U.S.
are Second Amendment sanctuaries, meaning the people, the law enforcement there, legally cannot assist the Feds in going after people for, say, gun control.
Many people have pointed out the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, they don't have the manpower to actually deal with all of the crime that may be occurring in this country.
So what happens when the Capitol Police use January 6th as a mandate to expand around the U.S., and then you actually get federal police in every major jurisdiction?
Then the feds can.
That's a massive expansion of federal authority.
Well, let's read exactly what's happening.
I have the story from the Daily Mail talking a little bit about everything, but I also have the actual statement from the United States Capitol Police on what their plan is.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member in order to get access to our exclusive members-only area of the website.
Now, I can't actually click that and show you on the screen what we have for you in the members-only area because YouTube would ban me.
No joke.
I can't even show you the title of one of our bonus podcasts with Dr. Chris Martenson because he talks about some issues that YouTube says we're not allowed to talk about.
If you want to hear these conversations, go to TimCast.com, become a member, but more importantly, when you sign up, you're helping us fund real journalists.
We have already produced, I think, over a hundred articles in the past couple of weeks.
We are bringing on more journalists and we are expanding.
We're going to be hiring fact-checkers.
We're going to be creating our own fact-checking division.
And we have a new show about a few weeks away on the unexplained.
Mysteries, murder, true crime, etc.
That's what you're getting when you support our work and you're helping us do more of the work we're doing here.
So, don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and share it with your friends.
If you're listening on a podcast or whatever, give us a good review.
But let's read from uscp.gov.
What they're doing.
And maybe it's not as bad as we think.
Maybe there won't be a massive push for a national police force, or maybe it's actually worse than we think.
You know, they're not going to come out right away and say, here's our grand plan for a federalized police force.
They may just come out and say, oh, don't worry.
Just a few regional offices for the Capitol Police.
They're not the Capitol Police anymore.
Now they're, you know, a bunch of other states as well.
After the attack, the future of the U.S.
Capitol Police.
They say in a press release, it has been six months since rioters attacked the U.S.
Capitol and our brave police officers and law enforcement partners who fought valiantly to protect elected leaders and the democratic process.
We will never forget USCP officers Brian Sicknick and Howie Liebengood, who died after the attack, nor the sacrifices of the nearly 150 law enforcement officers who were injured.
Now, let me pause right there and say, in regards to Brian Sicknick, apparently he died of natural causes.
I believe he had a stroke.
It was unrelated to the events of the Capitol.
Of course, this is what they need to justify the expansion and the demand for more power.
They say, since that day, our team has been working with federal law enforcement agents to track down the suspects and bring them to justice.
So far, more than 500 defendants face charges.
Throughout the last six months, the U.S.
Capitol Police has been working around the clock with our congressional stakeholders to support our offices, enhance security around the Capitol complex, and pivot towards an intelligence-based protective agency.
Interesting.
They say, U.S.
C.P.
continues to implement recommendations from a series of post-January 6th reviews, including examining the U.S.
Capitol attack, a report by the U.S.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the U.S.
Committee on Rules, U.S.
Senate Committee, Capitol Security Review, a report conducted by Lt.
Gen.
Russell Unner's task force, A series of flashcards by the USCP Office of the Inspector General, Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol's Physical Security Assessment, USCP Security Services Bureau's Complex Security Assessment, House Select Committee.
They want to mention everything they're planning on doing.
But let's just jump to the bigger picture on what's happening.
The Daily Mail reports six months on from the Capitol riot, Capitol Police is setting up field offices around the U.S.
This should be alarming to anybody.
The expansion of federal authority typically is not a good thing.
But it may be.
The states will be losing some power in the long run.
They don't want another civil war.
They want to retain their power.
And as the states become more and more divided, and have completely different rules and even ideologies, they need to find a way to retain control over this.
Well, as the federal government has repeatedly said that the far right is the true threat, How long until they go after people who aren't far-right but right-wing?
How long until people like Tucker Carlson and his followers are called the far-right?
I mean, they already are by the left in the establishment.
How long until they're considered far-right extremists?
Well, CNN already tried claiming that Tucker Carlson is the new Alex Jones.
They already call him an extremist.
They are rotating the wheel.
They are pushing the Overton window further and further.
Sooner or later, the Capitol Police will say that you You are an extremist, and they're going to spy on you, and they're going to hunt you down, and they're going to accuse you of things.
Now, maybe not.
Maybe it's paranoid.
But, just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you, as the saying goes, or as the song goes.
To put it mildly, if you are not vigilant, if you do not pay attention to this, that's when it gets worse.
If you push back, they may say, oh, you're crazy, it's not going to happen.
Yeah, only because you're saying no to the expansion of federal authority.
We know exactly what happens when the intelligence agencies get expanded powers.
6 months after the January 6th MAGA riot, fencing remains up around the Capitol building.
Authorities are searching for more than 300 suspects from that day, and a third of Republican candidates in next year's election are pushing the false claim that Trump won.
More than 500 people faced charges stemming from the riot, when thousands of pro-Trump supporters stormed the building to disrupt the formal certification of Joe Biden's victory.
Many blamed Trump for ginning up supporters.
With his unproven allegations.
The violence led to five deaths.
Of course, I don't think that's actually correct.
The people who died at the... I think there was three people who died?
Maybe there was five.
I could be wrong.
In the aftermath, the FBI is still seeking information on more than 300 people who were among those in the Capitol hallways that day.
That includes a $100,000 reward for the person who planted two bombs outside the offices of the Republican and Democratic National Committees the night before the riot.
The Justice Department has estimated that about 800 individuals may have been involved in the January 6th attack.
We can see here the severe level of security.
July 4th.
You may have seen a large police presence in front of the U.S.
Capitol this week.
This is part of our ongoing plan to increase the number of drills and exercises around campus.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
The law enforcement agency asks for information on those who made unlawful entry into the U.S.
Capitol building.
Interestingly, there's one woman who was charged with trespassing.
The only problem is the video evidence shows the police opening and holding the door for her.
A lot of people simply say, if the police open the door and let you in, how could that be trespassing?
It seems like what they're really looking for is an excuse to expand their power, the Daily Mail reports.
The National Guard troops, however, have gone home.
But, magnetometers remain outside the House floor after some Republican lawmakers admitted to carrying guns in the complex.
US Capitol Police, meanwhile, have increased their visibility, with officers and canines conducting drills around the Capitol.
This is part of our ongoing plan to increase the number of drills.
We saw that one.
Officers were overwhelmed by Trump supporters, we understand.
Capitol Police are also opening regional offices in Florida and California to deal with threats to members of Congress, acting USCP Chief Yogananda Pittman noted in a statement on the six-month anniversary.
Threats against lawmakers have more than doubled so far this year compared with last year, USCP noted in May.
Pittman also outlined other actions the agency has taken in the past six months, from increasing training, recruitment, and communication, to adding two new wellness support dogs, Lila and Phillip.
In response to the riot, USCP has asked for a $170 million increase in its 2022 budget compared with its fiscal year 2021 budget.
That matter is still being debated among lawmakers.
Partisan rancor remains high inside the marble walls of the Capitol complex, with lawmakers unable to agree on a number of issues, including a bipartisan commission to investigate what happened on January 6.
They say House Democrats last week approved a special committee to probe what happened that day, including the cause and the effects.
Interestingly, I interviewed Steve Bannon.
He said he was for the commission.
He absolutely wants to know what happened with that event.
He said violence is wrong and it's bad for us.
And that, these are, you know, paraphrasing him, he said, we are winning.
Especially, you know, if you look at what's going to happen on August 15th when kids start going back to school and these parents learn what these kids are being taught.
He said, yeah, we'll win.
So, absolutely we want the commission.
We want the Democrats to reveal everything that happened.
Who are these informants?
Give the Republicans a chance to actually challenge some of these witnesses on their ideas.
Now, I don't know exactly if that will actually play out because the Republicans seem to be blocking it.
But it certainly seems like there's a big push for some kind of expanded federal police powers.
The Capitol Police.
Well, they're supposed to be working the Capitol Complex.
Well, now they're going to have California and Florida offices.
Think about that just for a couple of seconds.
I mean, that to me is actually really fascinating.
California and Florida and California.
East and West Coast operations.
How long until they announce they're going to be opening up in Illinois, New York, Nebraska, Wyoming, whatever.
How long until we have a federal police force in major cities in every major state?
Maybe not.
Maybe they just want D.C., Florida, and California for some reason.
I don't know why Florida makes sense.
I'm sure other congressional politicians get threats in other places like Illinois.
I find it surprising that in Florida, just red, and surprisingly a solid blue district voted Republican, would have this issue.
California, I understand, it's deep, deep blue, and people there feel powerless.
What about these other cities?
I think it's entirely possible we're going to start seeing this as the White House is pushing its strategy to combat domestic extremism.
The New York Times reported this on June 15th.
The plan highlights a shift in the U.S.
approach to counterterrorism, which for decades focused on fighting foreign terrorists.
They are using domestic extremism as an excuse to expand their grip over the country as a whole.
Perhaps because they're genuinely scared, a civil war could break out.
And perhaps this is just the downward spiral that will lead to some kind of civil war.
Republicans say that they're going to carry guns, some of them, into Congress.
There are certainly some members of Congress that are pushing back and fighting, while many others are just laying down and giving up.
But the fervor is still there.
The anger is there, and many Republicans aren't going to just go away.
These expansion of police powers and the domestic extremism plans from Joe Biden, they're going to make things worse.
The New York Times reports the Biden administration on Tuesday unveiled a national strategy to combat domestic extremism, calling for aggressive steps such as hiring more intelligence analysts and screening government employees for ties to hate groups.
The 32-page plan highlights a shift in the government's approach to counterterrorism, which for decades has prioritized fighting foreign terrorists.
But violent attacks by American extremists are growing, a problem laid bare by the deadly Capitol riot.
The only people who died at that riot were Trump supporters.
Quote, We cannot ignore this threat or wish it away, Biden wrote in the strategy document.
Preventing domestic terrorism and reducing the factors that fuel it demand a multifaceted response across the federal government and beyond.
Now, could it be that the whole goal of this is to expand federal power and control over everybody?
There's a fear the federal government will give leniency to the far left, as they have in the past, and as have many progressive DAs.
But perhaps the real issue is they just use Antifa.
Useful idiots.
And they use the capital riots, of course.
When it comes to the right, violent events are much rarer, more rare, than the far left.
Newsweek reports.
This is from June 21st.
Has Joe Biden made anti-capitalism illegal?
Domestic terrorism strategy explained.
They want to mention the strategy in the 32-page document we just outlined.
And they mention what Joe Biden says.
We have to take both short-term steps to counter the very real threats of today and longer-term measures to diminish the emerging threats of tomorrow.
They go on to say, What does the strategy propose?
The 32-page report proposes various ways the U.S.
can tackle domestic terrorism, but states that its main purpose is specifically on addressing violence and the factors that lead to violence.
As part of the plan, in the section called Today's Threat, the administration outlines groups that it believes should be classified as DVEs, including extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, or religious hatred leads them towards violence.
The report puts an emphasis on ideologies that are rooted in the perception of the superiority of the white race, but then singles out several groups who take steps to violently resist government authority or facilitate the overthrow of the US government.
Classified as part of this section are anarchist violent extremists.
who violently oppose all forms of capitalism, corporate globalization, and governing institutions, which they perceive as harmful to society, according to the report.
The strategy adds that the groups may be motivated to violence by single issue ideologies related to abortion, animal rights, environmental, or involuntary celibate violent extremism.
Okay, that one's goofy.
As well as other grievances, or a combination of ideological influences.
They say, why have people said the strategy would criminalize anti-capitalist beliefs?
A post on Reddit on Saturday used quotes from the section describing those who oppose all forms of capitalism to argue that people who believe in an ideology would be classified as a DVE if the report became law.
The post was titled, Joe Biden's new anti-terrorism initiative classifies anarchist violent extremists, and you get the point, who oppose capitalism, etc.
A majority of the commenters on the thread then criticized the strategy, with one person claiming, it looks like even using rhetoric will mean you're a terrorist.
The Reddit users also highlighted a definition of domestic terrorism included in a report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on March 1st, 2021, which also included residents who oppose all forms of capitalism.
Using the two reports, several of the users claimed that the Biden administration would aim to criminalize opposition to capitalism by defining those who do as DVEs.
Yes.
What is a terrorist?
Well, they noted, maybe even using the rhetoric could result in you being a terrorist.
The far left?
Useful idiots.
The people who stormed the Capitol with violence?
Useful idiots.
It's the truth.
Violence is a bad thing.
Today, in order to win, we're in the era of psychological warfare.
It's fourth and fifth generational warfare.
You must be peaceful, persuasive, and resourceful.
Instead, a bunch of very angry people thought standing inside a building would give them some kind of governmental authority, which makes literally no sense.
This is the digital age.
Communication is more than just whoever is standing in a building.
And there you go.
This gives them the excuse To expand their powers.
Now, do they really need an excuse?
Sort of, not really, but kind of.
I say sort of, not really, but kind of in that... Now, if they want to expand their powers, they just slowly do it over time.
If they want to make a bigger leap and justify it, they do something like this.
You then get leftists and establishment media players who say it's a good thing they're expanding their power because of the evil rioters.
But who else are they going after?
Of course they're going to go after Antifa.
Maybe they won't.
You know, we've long seen them give Antifa a pass because Antifa are useful idiots for them.
You see, here's how it works, and here's what I warned about.
As Antifa goes around smashing things up and getting away with it, regular people are going to demand more militarism and expansion of federal powers, saying, please save me.
Uh-oh.
Did you think it wouldn't affect the right as well?
The right is the catalyst for it.
They say, those evil rioters, this is why we need all this money.
But the regular people are terrorized by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, so they're saying, fine, whatever, just stop these people as well.
So why was anti-fund Black Lives Matter allowed to get away with it for the most part?
Because it demoralized police, created an opening for an expansion of federal authority, got regular people to demand that federal authority, and now here we are.
Local police are quitting en masse across the country, they don't want to be involved in this, but regular people still want help.
What do we do?
The federal government needs to step in to save everybody.
That's what's worrying.
Maybe not.
Maybe it's just... Maybe it's just a small expansion of federal power.
Because, you know, they don't keep encroaching and growing their powers.
They usually give them up, right?
Right.
Yeah, they don't.
That's the point.
ABC News reported July 5th.
Feds warned last spring of spike in violence and extremism during pandemic.
Gun violence and extremism are on the rise.
Now that we have all these Second Amendment sanctuaries, how will they actually enforce gun control?
Well, they're gonna need a national or federal police force.
They're gonna need some way to go door-to-door and collect guns.
Oh, I know, they're saying, they're not confiscating your guns, it's not gonna happen.
They literally are.
They're called red flag laws.
They have been going around, one by one, with these red flag warrants, if you can even call them that, and taking people's weapons away.
So yeah, they're also slowly banning many weapons.
It is an expansion of government power that I find particularly worrying.
Of course, we saw Facebook asking you if your friends are extremists.
Is your friend an extremist?
Facebook is asking some users about exposure to content.
We are really, really heading towards a Chinese Communist Party-style government.
Fox News reports, San Francisco DA official says, crime surge fears linked to racism.
That's right.
A senior official in the San Francisco, in the SFDA's office, linked fears of a crime surge to racism in a tweet that raised eyebrows Sunday evening.
So, I'll issue a correction.
I believe earlier I said it was Chesa Bowden who said this.
It was his office, an individual in his office.
So there's, I'll make sure that's clear.
Kate Chatfield, a senior director in the far-left DAHS of Bowdoin's office, downplayed safety concerns amid a nationwide crime spike.
Chatfield was reacting to a Twitter user who said, every single one of my friends right now is considering
leaving San Francisco due to crime fears. My friends are scared for their children, and their
husbands are scared for their wives.
Quote, husbands are scared for their wives.
You're reminded that the crime surge crowd shares the same ideology as the birth of a nation.
Chatfield fired back, referring to an early 20th century white supremacist film.
Chatfield locked her account, making it only so her followers can see her tweets, after her comment about crime fears drew sharp criticism online.
Bowdoin's office didn't immediately return Fox News' request for comment.
These are the people that are leading the charge, elected in many instances unopposed, who are ignoring the crime surge.
Now, how does this make sense?
It's simple.
The thread that this woman was responding to, about how my friends are scared, my husband, my friend's husbands, or, you know, are scared for their wives... You see, this individual is saying there's a very serious crime problem, expressing how regular people don't like what's happening.
Then you get the good old Fall person.
Chesa Bowden.
He fails.
Regular people are fed up.
They're complaining.
What do we do?
How do we stop this?
These people, they're coming and they're destroying everything.
I know.
Perhaps we can ask the federal government for assistance.
Perhaps there will be an expansion of the Capitol Police or some kind of federal protective services to go into these areas to keep them safe.
Maybe the National Guard if the crime gets too bad.
In New York City, the NYPD occupy street corners.
I don't know, maybe a hyperbolic way of explaining it, but they do.
Where I lived, I lived in the street where a black nationalist executed cops.
Even with the police presence there on every corner and floodlights, these things still happened.
All that really happens in the end is that you live with the cops watching your every move.
The crime seems to stay the same, it doesn't really solve the problem.
But you get these conservatives who don't live in these areas saying things like, back the blue.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
These cops, they went to the McCloskey's house and seized their weapons.
And the McCloskey's didn't criticize them for it.
Then they turned in their weapons because they were evidence in a crime.
And they pleaded guilty.
I see conservatives giving up to this.
I see them ultimately giving in.
Now, it could be that even with the left being useful idiots, they're still going to get a free pass.
That's the ultimate worry that I have.
Sure, there are some that are scared Joe Biden's going to come after them because they're anti-capitalists, but I don't believe so.
It does, however, exist for a Republican to come in and use these laws and powers against them.
You see how this works?
Right now, will Joe Biden and his administration go after the far left?
Probably not.
Check out this story from Vice.
Hackers scrape 90,000 getter user emails, surprising no one.
No one got in trouble when they scraped Gab data.
No one is likely going to get in trouble that these hackers are scraping data from Getter, which is apparently a right-wing social media site.
I don't know what it is.
It's like a new kind of Twitter.
Nothing's going to happen yet.
If you look at Weave, now, the guy's got deplorable views, sure.
He was convicted because his friend was scraping emails off of an AT&T site.
Yet when they go after Parler and Gab and Getter, nothing is done.
I'll tell you how I think it works.
There's got to be a little bit of a back and forth.
They can't just come out with an iron fist and crush the left and the right.
Otherwise, you'll get a unified front.
You'll get angry people targeting the establishment immediately.
So right now you have three broad factions.
Pro-establishment, leftist, and right populist.
Within those factions, you have a bunch of different elements, I suppose.
The reason I say right populist is that there are extremist right-wingers that the conservative movement does not like, or that people on the right don't like, and they don't really fall into the right populist movement, which is, you know, Trump and his base.
They've spoken out against him, in fact.
But right now, if Biden comes out and says, lock up Antifa and the Trump supporters, Then Antifa and the Trump supporters are both unified against the establishment.
Right now, because the establishment is going after Trump supporters, these leftist activists are ignoring it.
Just like with censorship.
When the big tech companies were banning people on the right, the left said, but they're private companies and let it happen.
Leftists, who should have known better, let it happen and said, yeah, well, it's a private company, you know, you have no right to use it, which is a weird argument for a leftist who wants to seize the means of production, want everything to be controlled by the public.
They knew that if they came out and banned left and right, then you would get a massive mainstream push against what they're doing.
So long as they go after only one element of the culture war, the other side cheers for it.
So what's next?
Perhaps now Joe Biden will go after all of those right-wingers who dared to challenge the establishment and the federal government.
The left will likely ignore it and or cheer for it.
There's a journalist named Ryan Reilly.
He does the same thing Andy Ngo does.
He posts photos of people on the right saying, here's what's happening, here's what they arrested for.
Andy Ngo does that with Antifa members.
Antifa threatens Andy Ngo's life.
Not a conservative threatens the life of Ryan Reilly.
Okay, maybe some, but for Andy Ngo, it's the rule.
For Ryan, it's the exception.
Andy Ngo was physically beaten on more than one occasion for doing this.
So we can see that the current administration has a soft spot for the left.
What happens if Trump wins 2024?
Or DeSantis?
Will that soft spot for the left exist?
No.
What will likely happen is then, you'll see the shoe go on the other foot.
All of a sudden, now Antifa's gonna be getting crushed.
You'll probably see people on the right saying, good, fine, it's about time.
Back and forth it goes, making sure that they can go after one faction on one side without upsetting the whole system.
The establishment doesn't want to be in a conflict with the right and the left.
They want to be in conflict with one side at a time.
So, during the Trump administration, it was very much pointed at the left.
During the Biden administration, it is now very much pointed at the right.
Perhaps this is the natural ebb and flow, perhaps it's the natural process by which conflict occurs in this country, and maybe it's going to eventually destabilize because you go back and forth too much, the tower collapses.
Or maybe it's working out perfectly for the establishment.
Donald Trump gets in in 2024, or perhaps DeSantis, and then they weed the extremists that are on the left.
They get arrested, they get charged.
I mean, it didn't happen under Trump necessarily, but with this new policy pushed by Joe Biden, Trump could come out and say, oh, the anti-capitalist extremists, hey, it's Biden's policy, and now we're gonna start going after them.
I still think that's increasingly unlikely.
But I do think they will desperately try to maintain establishment power.
Establishment power, even under Trump, leans to the left.
Culturally, the institutions, our government.
So perhaps it won't be as bad for leftists as it is for people on the right.
They'll push the Overton window further and further to the left, and then eventually conservatives will be socialists, and the left will be ultra-communist, techno-communist, or whatever you want to call it.
I think that's where things may be going.
I want to show you just two more quick things, because this is not just me making things up.
Here's an article from The Hill.
Last year, they say, what current police reform efforts lack, a call to federalize.
Here is a post from, this is from Andy Bigg's office, Arizona's 5th congressional district.
House Democrats vote to nationalize local police departments.
He said he voted against this.
The idea of a national police department is not something I made up.
It may very well be coming.
The Democrats are trying to seize that control at the federal level, taking away their rights from the states.
We'll see.
I tell you these things and I bring up these stories not to say that they're guaranteed to happen, but to show you what is happening and say you must keep paying attention to make sure you don't allow evil people to gain power.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In a segment between Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy of CNN, they asked the very important question, is Tucker Carlson the new Alex Jones?
Well, Oliver Darcy said yes, and Stelter basically said yes.
Tucker Carlson is the new Alex Jones.
You see, what they did in this video, it's actually really quite hilarious.
I want to break it down for you, but let me just get to the crux of this segment.
CNN is dying.
They're trying to sell off the building that CNN is in in Atlanta.
They're trying to get rid of it.
There have been layoffs, resizing.
Their ratings are on fire.
Nobody wants to watch this garbage.
So what does Brian Stelter do?
Well, it's very simple.
And it's actually very sad.
It's like watching a horse drowning.
You can't really grab at straws because it just has hooves, so it's just sloshing and splashing about.
And as it slowly drowns, you're like, that's really sad.
I'm kind of sad, but it also turns out the horse is kind of a bad horse.
Kept biting people and yelling at people and kicking people, and you're like, eh, it's kind of hard to feel bad at this point.
Okay, stupid analogy, whatever.
The point is, CNN's ratings are in the gutter.
Nobody wants to watch this stuff because they lie all the time.
They lied for years.
They built up an army of people who hated Donald Trump, and now that Donald Trump ain't the president anymore, they got nobody to watch their garbage channel.
However, Tucker Carlson is a culture warrior.
He actually is pretty spot on in a lot of his segments, and they don't like him for it.
Does Tucker Carlson go out with raving and ranting psycho conspiracies about interdimensional aliens?
No, he doesn't.
Did he suggest, or did he state definitively that he was being spot on?
He did.
Perhaps he has evidence.
Okay, well, let's see.
There's a lot of people on the left now writing that he made it up because Fox won't even go near the story.
Perhaps it is the personal assessment of Tucker Carlson, and maybe he's wrong.
Sure, that's fine.
Tucker's allowed to be wrong.
So is CNN, actually.
The problem is CNN's wrong, like, all the time.
And it gets to a point where you're like, bro, are you deliberately wrong?
Yes.
And I'll show you why.
In this tweet from Oliver Darcy, woohoo!
Wow, Oliver!
Man!
I knew you went off the rails a long time ago, but this is a whole new level of bat-ish crazy.
We don't swear on this channel.
This is just, I mean, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard, desperate for some content or relevance, that he put together one of the stupidest videos I have ever seen.
Imagine if, like, Brian Stelter comes out and he goes like, Adolf Hitler drinks water.
Tucker Carlson drank water.
Is Tucker Carlson Hitler?
Somebody made that joke.
They were like, Hitler wore a suit, and so did Oliver Darcy.
Does that mean Oliver Darcy is the new Hitler?
Apparently so, based on the logic of Oliver Darcy.
Let me play for you this clip, so you can understand just how stupid this idea is.
But I also want to point out the absurdity and the desperation.
Brian Stelter has actually said, Tucker is the new Trump.
That's right, according to Brian Stelter, man, these people are crackpots.
Is Tucker Carlson the new Donald Trump?
CNN's Brian Stelter thinks so.
Is Tucker Carlson the new Alex Jones?
CNN's Brian Stelter seems to think so.
Some kind of amalgam of Donald Trump's boisterous leadership with Alex Jones's fervent rhetoric, and you get, uh, Don- Donnock's Trones.
That's- that's what CNN's telling you.
No.
How about this?
They're gonna be like, uh, is he- is he Trump?
Because they're desperate.
So desperate.
Please watch our garbage show.
And then when people didn't do it, they said, uh, well, you don't care about Trump, but what about Alex Jones?
Okay, let me just break down a little bit of that for you to explain why CNN is full of it, and then we'll make fun of CNN some more because their ratings are the trash and they're desperately trying to argue that no, no, no, they're actually okay.
The first thing, Tucker says, He's being spied on.
I don't know what really to say about that, other than he's made the claim that a whistleblower came to him with information that could only have come from his phone.
Maybe a little hyperbolic, I'd like to see some evidence, but not really much I can say.
Now, Alex Jones in the video says that he's being spied on and it's admitted.
There's probably a lot of context there that's missing, but let's just talk about Edward Snowden.
Both of these men are being spied on.
I'm being spied on.
You know why?
Because you're being spied on too.
Because the NSA does bulk collection of data.
Next.
Alright, well, let's get more specific.
The claim essentially is that they're both being spied on.
When I was at Vice, we had a joke about, we wanted to do a video where the top Vice people, like personalities, would file Freedom of Information Act requests, FOIA requests, on their names, and the competition was to see who had the bigger FBI file.
Yeah, you're being tracked.
They're investigating you passively or directly.
Now, whether or not that's true for Jones or Tucker, I don't know.
But if someone came to me and said that I'm a high-profile media figure and anti-establishment, who's very critical of the federal government, I'm being spied on, I'd be like, yeah, probably.
I think that's a bit of a stretch to say everybody.
I know a lot of people who don't know that, who don't know anybody.
And even if we were to look at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which some say is between 1 and 10% of the actual adverse events, we're talking about 177 million vaccines.
So Alex Jones is a bit more bombastic.
The point is...
I'm not here to argue about any of that stuff.
You can talk to your doctor about it.
You know I always say that, and YouTube actually requires you to, but anyway, I digress.
What Tucker was saying was nowhere near the level of what Alex Jones was saying.
This is based off of information that there are individuals whose names will not be released in FBI documents.
However, these individuals have not been indicted.
That is to suggest they are confidential informants.
There was recently a big expose on a very prominent right-wing figure that they may have actually been an informant for the federal government.
And so, Tucker, probably a bit bombastic, maybe a little bit of a stretch to say, but it seems like what's really happening is the feds were coaxing people and saying, yeah, yeah, you know, do it, do it.
Tucker is then taking the, in my opinion, hyperbolic approach to say, they literally organize it.
Well, what the FBI does is they find mentally unwell people and then coax them into doing something, often provide the resources, and then arrest them.
So, is it a stretch to say?
Actually, maybe not.
Maybe not.
But maybe you need to be a little bit more nuanced in how you're providing the context, at least in my opinion.
But, not inherently wrong.
Alex Jones then goes on to say that rogue elements of the government staged or whatever.
Look, simply because there is some morsel of truth here does not mean that Tucker Carlson is Alex Jones.
I find it absolutely hilarious that CNN is more akin to the... Well, actually, that's not even fair to Alex Jones.
I was gonna say CNN's more like Alex Jones, taking a morsel of truth and stretching it.
But that's not even fair to Alex Jones.
Alex may be bombastic in a lot of ways, but he's gotten...
Dude, some story is right over the past several years and even Joe Rogan was like, man, people owe that guy an apology.
I'll tell you this, man, when I had Alex on the IRL podcast and he was like, you know, we're eating a bunch of cloned beef.
And I was like, Alex, we are not eating cloned cows.
What are you talking about, Alex?
That's crazy.
And then he was like, look it up.
And I looked it up and I'm like, no, wait a minute.
We are eating cloned beef.
So I think the funny thing is, you know, Alex might find some of these weird stories people don't believe.
And then sure enough, it turns out to be true.
The same thing happened on Joe Rogan's show.
Alex said a bunch of stuff and Joe's like, that's not true.
And he's like, look it up.
And then Joe looked up and they were like, oh, actually that is true.
And, and you don't believe it because some of these stories sound insane.
When Alex comes out and gives you these actual, like, listen, listen.
Alex comes out and says, rogue elements of the government were planning or staging January 6th or whatever.
I think that's a big stretch.
But I gotta admit, when he came out and said, we're eating cloned beef, that sounded even crazier.
I'm like, there's no mass production.
How are they even to do the cloned beef?
Get out of here.
And he's like, yeah, it's true.
And I looked it up and it is true.
Cloned meat?
That's nasty, man.
I didn't realize that.
Well, Alex Jones says this.
In a news story, Jones says Tucker Carlson echoes him because they see the same issues.
Yeah, I see many of the same issues as well.
But regardless of this, CNN took the most absurd semi-related clips and then it's there's what three of them?
Tucker Carlson is Alex Jones because we found three things that are tangentially similar.
What are you doing?
Wow, wow.
You know, Oliver Darcy once interviewed me about social media censorship.
And I said banning the alt-right was wrong because censorship doesn't work.
It pushes these things into the dark corners where they fester and they grow.
And that's still true to this day.
I mean, that stuff hasn't gone away.
It's a complicated story, and I don't want to put too much into it, but there are certainly elements of the alt-right that have only been strengthened by the censorship in some regards.
Now, they certainly wanted more mainstream exposure, but they never had a particularly large, mainstream, powerful, prominent center.
It was only because new right individuals didn't know what they were looking at.
But anyway, I digress.
Here we can see that the absolute psychosis of CNN.
It knows no bounds.
The censorship doesn't work.
But as I was saying with Oliver Darcy, he interviewed me about this.
And it was like a normal, like, prominent YouTuber or a prominent, you know, journalist says censorship is wrong.
Because Oliver Darcy used to be a conservative.
He used to do these really, really cheesy, like, man-on-the-street things where he tried to own libs.
And it was sad.
It was really pathetic.
Oliver Darcy's lack of talent and skill You know, he couldn't figure out a way to be a conservative.
Here's what I think.
I think Darcy was conservative.
I think he held these views.
I think he understands what he's doing.
I think he knows he's lying.
I think he's just a sociopath.
So what happens is, I mean, you look at the guy.
The craziest thing is in this video, he didn't even blink.
People are pointing out that in this video with Brian Stelter, Oliver Darcy doesn't blink!
And people are like, yo, dude's not blinking, that's creepy, man!
Okay, well, I don't know if blinking has anything to do with, you know, his abilities, but let me just put it this way.
The dude's a sociopath.
Okay?
Maybe he was never really conservative.
Maybe he was like, ooh, I can make these videos, it's really easy.
And when it didn't work, he's like, okay, that doesn't work.
I guess conservatives aren't stupid enough to fall for that.
Some are, for sure.
So then what does he do?
Well, he goes to CNN and starts producing lies.
Garbage content.
Manipulation.
And it's sad.
Alright, well, you know, Alex Jones is saying that Tucker and him see the same issues, but sure, a lot of people see the same issues.
Just because Alex Jones talks about things doesn't mean everyone is Alex Jones for talking about the same things.
That's dumb.
Is Tucker Carlson the new Donald Trump?
Here's your evidence.
March 14th, it was only a few months ago, CNN was claiming Tucker was Donald Trump.
Brilliant.
You see, they're gonna keep saying this.
What they're really trying to say is, Trump is gone, we have no boogeyman.
Alex Jones is gone, we have no boogeyman.
The only thing that is prominent on the right that the left knows about is Tucker Carlson, and we hate him.
What can we do to get videos made about us, perhaps?
I think what they're trying to do is siphon away some of the views from Fox News, at least temporarily.
Because the people who like Tucker will watch that video and then be like, mmm, you're wrong, CNN.
And at least CNN will temporarily get some money before it all goes belly up and they all lose their jobs.
Imagine being such a pathetic loser that you would decide to do this kind of extremist content where you're like, Tucker claimed that vaccines have risks, and Alex Jones made a much more wild statement, but they're the same thing!
Yo, you go to your doctor, they're gonna tell you there's risks.
But they're gonna tell you the risks are substantially lower than COVID.
So, what's the issue?
I love it.
Trying to compare him to Donald Trump.
All right, well, let's play a game from Forbes.
CNN drops 68% in prime as Fox News Channel crushes competition in Q2 cable news ratings.
That's from Forbes.
Really, you don't say?
Well, check this out from the Daily Beast.
Fox News really wants you to think its ratings aren't down.
I'm not so convinced that's true.
MSNBC and CNN's ratings are seriously slumping, as Fox News and its right-wing media allies have relentlessly pointed out.
But that, of course, is not the full picture.
Yeah, everyone's ratings are down.
My views are down.
During the election year, it was nuts!
I mean, it was one of the most important and prominent elections ever.
But we were getting, we got like a hundred, I think a total of like 130 million views in October and November.
That's crazy.
Now we get like 50 to 60.
So it's like down by a little bit more than half.
That's substantial.
50 or so percent.
I'm not surprised though.
Why do people like during the election, people want to know what's going on and they were locked down.
But yes, CNN's ratings are absolutely in the gutter.
Now, CNN's ratings will improve in the next year with the midterms coming up, and I think they'll improve decently.
But I don't know if that matters all that much because CNN is just not worth it.
Check this out.
AT&T pays $18.8 million for CNN Center ground and air rights ahead of possible sale of complex.
That is not them paying $18.8 million to CNN.
They are buying the air and ground rights of the complex because they are possibly going to sell the building.
Hell, there you go.
So why are they so desperate and so panicked to produce this garbage segment?
Well, look, let's be real.
Brian Stelter doesn't deserve to have a TV show.
He really, really doesn't.
He's bad at what he does.
He doesn't bring on any opposition commentary.
He doesn't have any meaningful debate.
He doesn't do any fact-checking or research.
It's all garbled nonsense, talking points, regurgitated and vomit on the floor.
But more importantly, we don't need a show about the media right now.
It doesn't make sense.
All he does is talk about Tucker Carlson.
He basically says, don't watch Fox News because we watched it for you and then we'll tell you what we don't like about it.
Is that it?
Look, I rag on CNN every so often, but I rag on tons of media.
You know, that's the problem with being the Empire, with being the legions for Darth Vader.
I would never call Brian Seltzer Darth Vader, he doesn't deserve that.
You know, Darth Vader actually was powerful.
But this is what happens when you are a dying news outlet for the Empire, and the only real opposition is one cable channel.
I can look at all of these channels, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, and I can point out how this massive network is producing garbage and lying.
And then you got Fox News.
Yeah, they're not perfect.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Hannity or Laura Ingram.
I think Tucker's alright.
I think their news reporting, Bret Baier, is fantastic.
That's about it.
But they're one channel.
I'm not gonna sit here and be like, oh no, one guy with one show.
No.
I'm not.
Brian Stelter represents the establishment machine and their desperation to go after anyone who dare oppose the establishment.
Brian Stelter is not doing videos about how Rachel Maddow produced lies for years.
Why?
Because he produced the same exact lies.
So when I criticize CNN, and I do often, it is mostly about the entirety of the establishment and the failures of the anti-Trump media.
By all means.
You're allowed to criticize Tucker Carlson.
By all means, Brian Stelter's allowed to produce a segment saying Tucker bad.
That's fine.
I produce a segment saying Brian Stelter bad.
Sure.
And Tucker Carlson is substantially larger than Brian Stelter.
The issue is CNN as a massive conglomerate and the lies they've produced over years.
The Pulitzer Prizes won by the New York Times and whatever garbage CNN got for their fake news on Russiagate.
They have pushed the lies over and over again.
They tell you not to think.
Don't think.
Just watch, and we'll do all the work for you.
You can't read the WikiLeaks emails.
Only we can.
Don't watch Fox News.
We'll watch it for you.
Congratulations.
You guys are in a downward spiral.
They're gonna sell your building off.
You're gonna get laid off.
And you know what?
Good riddance.
Because new channels are on the rise.
We got TimCast.com popping up.
We're expanding.
Our ratings are going up, up, up.
We have infinite room for growth.
So as CNN is on the decline, our network grows.
Good.
We'll see how things play out.
But I'm confident, because I'm watching exponential growth, while CNN, exponential decline.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
And to be fair, Republicans say dumb things on Twitter, and I especially say dumb things on Twitter, but to be fair as well, I sometimes say those dumb things on purpose.
Terry McAuliffe, he is the former governor of Virginia, he wants to be governor again, said, call me crazy, but I think it should be easier to vote than it should be to buy a gun.
Uh-huh.
This is something really dumb we've heard before.
I believe it was David Hogg who said something similar.
Now, the reason why this tweet is important is, well, for one, we've got the expansion of Second Amendment sanctuaries across the country, and we've got many Democrats saying they're going to defy these laws.
Which, I don't know, we're gonna head towards lawlessness and states fighting with states, but anyway.
It's really dumb because as you probably know, it's much easier to vote than it is to buy a gun.
Terry McAuliffe knows this because Terry McAuliffe owns guns and campaigns on, I'm a hunter and I have guns, but I think we should have gun control.
If you have bought a gun, you know this is not true.
You see, I'm gonna say something very bold.
Owning a gun is more important than voting.
That's right.
And I tweeted this.
And a bunch of people said, wow, imagine Tim Pool in 2017 saying something like that.
Yes.
Yes, absolutely.
Imagine that.
Probably wouldn't have happened.
You know, I had never bought a gun before.
Plus, there's a whole lot of other issues and conversations I've had that have allowed me to evolve on the issue, becoming much more libertarian in terms of gun control.
Gun rights, I should say.
But yes, owning a gun is more important than voting.
Why?
You can't vote your way out of fascism.
Of course, there's a whole bunch of really dumb people on Twitter who said, but we just did!
Because they'd have no idea what fashion is!
I'm sorry, could someone please just inform the North Koreans that they should just not vote for the Kim dynasty and then everything would improve?
Oh, no.
The Kim family enjoys a 99.99% approval rating.
Why?
Because they imprison and execute dissidents.
But here's, this is why it's so nefarious.
Terry McAuliffe is a liar.
He's lying.
He knows that you can get a vote in the mail.
I believe Virginia was doing mail-in voting.
Universal mail-in voting in many states without even a request.
In New Jersey, I got a mail-in ballot.
I didn't ask for it.
I didn't have to sign for it.
It just appeared in my mailbox and we were worried that someone might take it because they could.
And then what?
They fill it out and send it in?
And then what?
They skimp over on signature verification?
Buying a gun is much harder than voting.
So here's my proposal.
First, let me show you a bit about why Terry McAuliffe is a liar.
We'll talk about what's going on with gun control in the Second Amendment sanctuaries.
And I want to talk to you about why it's so important to have a gun.
But let me just say this.
The Republicans should introduce the Ensuring Buying a Gun is Harder Than Voting Act.
And what that does is it allows them to make it much harder to vote.
See, we're going to ensure that it's harder to buy a gun.
What does that mean?
Well, you can get a gun sent to you for free, in the mail, without requesting it.
But, in order to make it just a little bit harder than voting, you're gonna have to sign for the package.
That's it.
Because when it comes to mail-in voting, you just get it, whether you ask for it or not.
So, we'll send everybody a gun for free, and then they just have to sign when the package arrives, and then that's a little bit harder.
Because if you're not there, you don't get it.
Whereas with your vote, it just appears to your house.
How about we do the inverse?
How about we say we're gonna ensure it's harder to buy a gun, so we're going to dramatically increase the restrictions on voting.
Just pass the bill saying, you know, we're ensuring voting is easier than buying a gun bill.
And to ensure it's just slightly easier.
You'll have to pass a NICS background check.
You can get delayed and rejected.
It'll cost you money.
You'll have to pay taxes.
And how about this?
How about we go hard with it and say, you gotta go NFA.
You gotta get fingerprinted.
You gotta go to the Sheriff's Department, come back, then go back.
You gotta do a training course.
That's right.
You gotta do an HQL course.
Then, once you have completed all that, you can go in, and then you will be able to vote.
Yes, because it's just not true.
Check this out.
Terry McAuliffe, according to Wikipedia, is a hunter and owns several shotguns.
McAuliffe supports universal background checks for gun sales, as well as a renewal of the state's one-month limit on handgun purchases.
Abandon anyone subject to a protection from abuse order from having a gun and the revoking of concealed handgun permits for parents who are behind on child support payments.
McAuliffe also called for an assault weapons ban in Virginia.
In January 2016, McAuliffe reached a compromise with Republicans, allowing interstate holders of concealed carry permits in Virginia, nullifying Attorney General Mark Herring's previous ruling.
Effective February 1st, 2016, the deal will also take guns from domestic abusers and will require state police to attend gun shows to provide background checks upon request from private sellers.
Here's a guy who reportedly owns, is a hunter and owns several shotguns.
So I'll tell you what happened for him in Virginia when he went to go buy his gun.
He went in.
They checked his ID.
That's right.
They checked his ID, because you gotta be a resident of the state to buy in-state.
They then asked him to fill out a background check form, providing his birthday, answering a series of questions, assuring them he doesn't do drugs, that he's not a convicted felon, that he is a citizen, Providing his social security number.
That one's sort of optional, I guess, but probably his birthday, his current address, the city where he was born, and then they said, Nix is now running your background check.
Give us a minute.
I'm sure that's what happened.
Now, for him, being a politician, I'm sure he got cleared relatively quickly.
But when you go to vote, you know what I did when I went to vote?
I walked in, I said, here's my name, I'm here to vote, and they said, okay, there you go.
And I walked in the booth and went, boop, boop, boop, and that was it.
So in order to buy a gun, you need an ID and a federal background check.
We don't do that for voting, and he knows it.
He is lying.
These people are manipulative scumbags, and they know it.
Let's talk about why it's more important to own a gun than it is... I should say that.
It's simple.
Owning a gun is more important than voting.
Simply put, you can vote your way into authoritarianism, but you have to shoot your way out.
World War II Germany.
Why didn't the people just vote against Hitler?
Well, a bunch of these dumb leftists say things like, but he was a fascist and, like, the people voted him in.
He was killing dissidents.
They were indoctrinating children.
Pay attention to history.
Why don't the communists just vote out the communists?
Because they execute you.
Why won't... Okay, fine.
Make all the historical arguments in the world you want.
Why won't the North Koreans simply... Why don't they simply just vote for someone else?
Weird how that works, isn't it?
Because you can't just walk out.
Owning a gun is more important than voting.
Because people can vote for a whole bunch of stuff.
And you know what?
Some people don't have all the answers and don't want to vote for certain things.
But I'll tell you this.
People need to defend themselves from foreign invasions and domestic enemies.
To put it simply, voting, on its very most basic level, is participation in the republic, or whatever country you live in, and you're letting your voice be heard.
Assuming you live in a actual free and fair country, unlike North Korea, voting is important for you to assert your voice in domestic and, to a certain extent, foreign policy issues.
Owning a gun actually has two main purposes.
Defending this country from foreign enemies should they try to invade and defending this country from domestic enemies should they be homegrown terrorists or extremists or tyrannical politicians.
You see, let's say there's a terrorist and they're armed and they're saying, I'm going to do something bad.
You can't vote them away.
Let's say there was a foreign boats crashed on the shores and they jumped out.
You can't vote them away.
So it's actually really, really simple.
It's not complicated.
Owning a gun provides you with defense in a multitude of ways, and it's not just about defending yourself from a tyrannical government.
China put out this propaganda cartoon where it's like the 4th of July, and it's two people, like, cheersing or whatever, and then one crazy guy, you know, shooting, and there's blood splattering.
Sure, there are a lot of people dumb in this country who do dumb things with guns and fireworks and explosives or whatever.
But there's a reason why China doesn't like that we have guns.
As it goes, there's a gun behind every blade of grass.
Yeah, America's never gonna get invaded.
It's just not gonna happen.
Because everyone here is armed to the teeth.
And maybe these cities are in trouble, but they have a lot of cops and the cops are armed.
But interestingly, the weakest points of this country are probably big cities.
You'd have to bring in National Guard and hope your police can handle it.
You go out into the countryside, you're gonna have dudes walking around with ridiculous weapons.
I got a 50 BMG!
You know, don't come out here and trespass.
Don't invade this country.
Granted, I'm not about to be taking my 50 BMG out of storage for anything like home defense.
No, you've got more practical home defense weapons.
You know, standard AR-15, 5.56, you probably don't want to use in your home, but maybe.
I'm a fan of like a...
Like a 9mm AR pistol with the frangible or hollow point rounds
For defense because you want to minimize damage, you don't want over penetration, things like that
So I'll put it this way As I already stated, it's very simple
When you own a gun, you can protect your family from an intruder.
You can defend your country from enemies, uh, foreign enemies.
And you can defend your country from domestic enemies, which could be political extremists.
You can also defend your country from the abuse of voting.
If somebody votes in a tyrannical dictator, and they start oppressing people, and you don't have weapons of any kind, oh well, I'm sorry, there you go.
It's just, you're not gonna be able to do anything about it.
So that's why so many dictators try to take away guns from people before they implement their insane authoritarianism.
They don't want the opposition.
The United States recognizes this, and that's why.
This story from Just the News.
Nearly two-thirds of U.S.
counties now Second Amendment sanctuaries.
As of June 20th, there are 1,930 counties protected by Second Amendment sanctuary legislation at either the state or county level.
They say.
Texas was the 21st state to pass a constitutional carry bill, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law and which becomes effective September 1st.
And while some legislatures are not taking the same action, county officials have chosen to enact their own legislation.
Roughly 1,137 counties have taken it upon themselves to pass Second Amendment sanctuary legislation, and likely hundreds of cities, townships, boroughs, etc.
have done so at their level as well.
The Second Amendment sanctuary movement was born out of a grassroots effort brought on by county or municipal leaders who vowed not to enforce any gun laws imposed by state or federal bodies they deemed were unconstitutional.
Sheriffs have also made pledges to uphold the Second Amendment.
Most recently, every sheriff in Utah, quote, Importantly, the Second Amendment of our divinely inspired Constitution clearly states, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A letter signed by all 29 Utah sheriffs states, we hereby recognize a significant principle underlying the Second Amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms is indispensable to the existence of a free people.
Upon signing the new Texas law, Abbott said Texas was a Second Amendment sanctuary state.
Months earlier, Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts signed a proclamation giving Nebraska the same sanctuary designation.
And Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed a bill that nullifies federal gun laws in the show-me state.
Basically what these laws do.
At the state level.
If the feds try to come in to enforce some kind of gun regulation, these sanctuary laws say that state-level resources and below cannot be used to assist the federal government.
Okay.
It's no guarantee.
And I still think you'd want to abide by the law.
What you do is you file lawsuits.
It's not easy.
There are organizations that do this.
This is the way the system is supposed to work, and it's a brilliant system in my opinion.
They may pass a law.
Just because they passed a law, doesn't mean they immediately violated the constitution, technically speaking.
The way it works is, they'll pass a law, and then you challenge the law if you have standing, and the law stands or dies in the courts.
Some laws are very very obvious, you know, murder has been, you can't kill people, it's just, you know.
Self-defense is different, but you literally can't go out and intentionally, you know, kill someone.
That's obvious to everybody.
So, you can't do it.
Don't, please.
Like, that's bad.
But then there are some laws, like gun control laws, that people say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
They pass the law anyway.
These are about interpretation as to what it means, the right to keep and bear arms, and of course, you've got duplicitousness and manipulators, liars, and cheaters, people like Terry McAuliffe, who are clearly lying.
About voting.
And you have to fight them, the courts.
I believe it is a brilliant system because it removes the physical conflict.
It allows people a chance to implement laws and then see if the judges will uphold them based on their interpretation of the existing laws or the Constitution.
It should be a no-brainer that owning guns is more important than voting.
However, as I've beaten that horse quite severely, the dead horse, it's a metaphor, I want to point out that voting is still extremely important, but you've got to understand that with the right to vote comes great responsibility.
A lot of people in San Francisco now are planning their exodus.
Around 40 people polled said they were planning on leaving due to a decline in quality of life and increase in crime.
This moderate Democrat woman created a big thread saying that the problem was not that they believe X percent of crime has gone up, but that there's too many stories where they're like, someone tried breaking into my child's bedroom, or I was chased home by a lunatic homeless person or I was spat on, or there was trash all over the streets with a bunch of homeless people sleeping there.
People don't feel safe.
They don't feel comfortable.
And there's human crap all over the streets.
It really is that bad.
People just take dumps in the streets.
But they voted for this.
You see why voting can be dangerous?
Yes, owning a gun can be very dangerous.
The last thing we need is some dude walking around with a .50 BMG.
I mean, what do they weigh, like 70 pounds?
But these are powerful weapons that have specific purposes, and we don't need reckless people messing around with them.
We need well-trained and serious individuals.
In order to have that, we need to actually relax gun laws.
We need schools to teach basic firearm safety.
This is a country where you have a right to keep and bear arms.
What the Second Amendment says is, A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What that means is foreign and domestic.
People say the Second Amendment was made to protect us from tyrannical government.
Technically.
Technically.
The colonists viewed themselves as British for a while, but eventually they viewed themselves as Americans.
When the British came, it wasn't that they felt they were being oppressed by their own government.
They felt that a foreign adversary, effectively, because they were like, we're independent.
You don't govern us.
This makes no sense.
Really, what happened was the British were basically saying, we want you to keep giving us money.
And they were like, we're not going to keep giving you money.
And they needed guns.
The British tried taking their guns away, actually.
The British did a bunch of really messed up stuff that ultimately helped spark the revolution.
They were trying to take the guns while levying war against the colonists to try and suppress this idea of independence.
So now we have America.
Take a look at what's happening around the world with COVID lockdowns.
Australia, Canada, the UK.
They're severe.
Videos of cops barging into people's homes and just dragging them out wrongfully in many circumstances.
There's a video in Australia.
There was a guy apparently was walking down the street drinking a coffee and the cops were like, put your mask on.
Now, in the United States, they have done similar things in big cities.
The big cities where people don't have the ability to defend themselves.
Because these cities, in my opinion, violate the Constitution by making it damn near impossible to keep in bare arms.
Now, the people who choose to live in these places get harassed and victimized.
You take a look at what happens in San Francisco, with the people all saying they're going to be leaving because of the crime.
Well, it's because they can't do anything to defend themselves.
Now, in the middle of nowhere, you can defend yourself.
You have a right to keep and bear arms.
It's pretty lax in West Virginia, I believe.
Getting rid of their sales tax on guns and ammo.
That's amazing.
Taxes, of course, passing constitutional carry.
Virginia already is constitutional carry, which means you can go in, buy a gun, and walk out with it.
But guess what?
It's still easier to vote.
I should know.
When you, when you, when you vote, uh, or, or, I mean, let me put it this way.
Even with constitutional carry, you still have to do a background check.
Now, if you want, there is a way.
You can walk into a store, buy a gun, and walk right out.
And that's if you get a concealed carry permit, because it acts as your background check.
They're not super easy to get.
They're not super difficult.
It's just tedious.
I don't have the time to go and do it, so I don't have one of those.
But it's constitutional clarity, which means in West Virginia, you can take your gun, you can put it in your holster inside the belt so people can't see it, so it's concealed, and you don't need a permit for it.
You still have to go through a background check and show your ID, two by one.
Something you don't need to do in many jurisdictions when it comes to voting.
These Democrats know this.
I wonder why it is, then.
They want to take away your right to defend yourself.
You see what's happening in San Francisco.
There's this video going viral.
Ten people raiding a store and just running out full speed.
Nobody will do anything about it.
Nobody can do anything about it.
And the left's response is, you can't take a life to defend property.
That's not necessarily true.
You have to define what property is.
You know, if someone is threatening to kill, say, your farm animals, it really depends.
It really depends.
But there is, I think, in many circumstances, you are not just solely able to just end someone's life because they might harm property.
So it's challenging.
In places like West Virginia, however, you can actually shoot and kill someone to prevent them from even entering your property.
So take a look at San Francisco.
There are a lot on your property.
They can take whatever they want.
You can't do anything about it.
You take a look at these red states.
If they even try to enter your property, you can shoot them.
Some places, like New Jersey, have what they call Castle Doctrine, but it's partial Castle Doctrine, meaning you can't even defend your own home.
You're obligated to flee unless you can justify why that would not have been safe.
Good luck.
They'll arrest you and say, we don't buy it.
You could have fled.
Sorry, prison for you.
Then you got some states where you have a duty to enter your home.
Where someone comes onto your property, you run into your house and hope they go away.
Then you have places like West Virginia.
I'm pretty sure West Virginia is straight up stand-your-ground castle doctrine.
If someone you don't know is trying to enter your property, period, you can shoot them to stop them from doing it.
And I don't think that... I think that includes like outside your house.
And the reason for it is...
There's other laws in these areas where you're allowed to drive on public roads without license plates, headlights, or a license.
Now that sounds crazy, right?
Well, it makes a lot of sense if you're driving a tractor.
You know, when you live in a rural area, you might need to move farm equipment and you might have to go over the road so they can't just be like every vehicle that's just 99% of the time in a field can't cross a road.
Well, they said within a certain reason you're allowed to travel a certain amount of distance without the proper, you know, license thing or whatever.
It makes sense.
Perhaps in these more rural areas, it makes more sense because someone could come and actually cause loss of life and millions of dollars in damage, which would negatively impact the entirety of the towns if, say, they destroyed a crop or polluted it or set it on fire or whatever.
So you're allowed to defend your property.
You are.
Look, I don't like the idea of people losing their lives, but I'll keep it simple.
You can vote in these lunatics.
It becomes impossible to vote them out.
Tucson will ignore Arizona's Second Amendment sanctuary law, because Democrats there say, we don't care what law you passed.
We're going to do what we want.
The divide and the split, it's substantive.
We are seeing the blue cities defy their state laws.
We are seeing blue states defy federal law.
We are seeing this very serious divide, and I feel like You know, people say when they come for the guns, that's when people will lose it.
They've already been enacting red flag laws.
Some people have lost it.
Some people have lost their lives over it.
So I think that's a fair point.
But I'll wrap it up here.
Don't vote for anybody who wants to take away your rights.
It's that simple.
There is no right being lost when a Republican says, you get to keep guns.
There are some rights being lost by some, you know, Republican policy, for sure.
I shouldn't even say, maybe rights is not the right word.
Freedoms or...
It's tough.
It's tough to say what the right word is for because not everything is a right that gets banned or restricted, right?
But owning a gun is a right.
The Democrats want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.
The Republicans don't.
But that doesn't mean Republicans are perfect either.
That's why I tend to just float more towards libertarian.
Although I kind of lean left on libertarian issues, there's no real libertarian left at a national level.
So you vote for the libertarian right and then you get to do your libertarian left thing in private and they leave you alone.
There's no easy answers to all of this stuff other than you gotta be responsible for yourself.
You can't have other people be responsible for you for your entire life.
What happens?
San Francisco happens.
Crime runs rampant and then people flee because they don't want to be responsible for themselves or they literally can't.
