S5198 - Majority Of Trump Voters Want Secession And 41% Of Biden Voters Agree, The Republic Is COLLAPSING
Majority Of Trump Voters Want Secession And 41% Of Biden Voters Agree, The Republic Is COLLAPSING. Democrats and Republicans are clashing in unprecedented ways.
But while Democrats ram through insane agendas and far left policy Republicans do absolutely nothing leaving their constituents enraged and demanding of change.
The result is national divorce, civil war, or the collapse the republic.
Antifa, BLM, riots etc
It all seems to be coming apart at the seams
#Democrats
#Republicans
#CivilWar
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, a majority of Trump voters want the country to break into two different countries, and 41% of Democrats want the same thing.
And my friends, we are moving in that direction, and we got the evidence to back it up.
In our next story, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks says that if he were to fight Joe Rogan, he would end him.
I'm sorry, this is too funny.
We have to talk about this.
And in our last story, gun control laws have driven Smith & Wesson out of Massachusetts after 165 years.
But millennials want guns.
Something is changing in this country and it's happening gradually and suddenly.
Now if you like the show, leave us a good review and give us 5 stars.
Tell your friends about it.
Now, let's get into that first story.
There's a lot of reasons for it.
I mean, both sides view the other as evil liars, and independents seem to be mostly divided, but independents seem to be leaning more towards supporting the Republican side of things.
Now, it's not necessarily about Democrat or Republican, but that's what people are viewing it as.
The problem here is that there's no Mason-Dixon line.
You can't just have blue states secede and red states secede because it would be a very strange map.
Blue states aren't all touching each other.
And not just that, some people have said maybe the cities should secede.
Yeah, but blue states are just big cities dominating their more conservative rural regions, and red states are, for the most part, the rural regions dominating their more Democrat, liberal, urban centers.
But regardless of what or how it could happen, I think it's happening.
I have said it before, the Republic has already fallen.
Why?
Well, there's no border.
You've got migrants walking back and forth.
A new report suggests that 60,000 more migrants are on their way to the border.
And NBC says it could be upwards of 400,000 next month.
If you have no border, you have no jurisdiction, you have no claim to a nation or a country or a county or a state for that matter.
Now that isn't necessarily indicative of a civil war or a divide between the two factions, but more and more of these polls are popping up and you can see the divide.
Absolutely people are gearing up for some very serious conflict.
There's a story about a man throwing a Molotov cocktail into a DNC headquarters.
I think it was a DNC headquarters.
We'll get into that story.
We got a story about a Boogaloo boy who went to Minnesota and fired rounds at a police station.
The media tries claiming he was a far-right individual posing as Black Lives Matter.
The dude was yelling justice for Floyd.
Boogaloo boys are anti-government, anarchist-types, libertarian-types, and they've marched with Black Lives Matter before.
But the media needs to have this dichotomy.
They can't accept that there's nuance in what's going on.
And then we have a hate crime hoax.
We have a lot of stories.
We have a report now, Antifa violence isn't even being tracked because Antifa isn't considered a group.
It's just considered potentially Antifa, or I'm sorry, anarchist violence.
You have these powerful individuals in the federal government saying the far right is dangerous and white supremacy is dangerous and they don't even talk about the lower tier but more frequent anti-fa-terror affecting this country.
We just had a story, I covered it in a previous segment, about Smith & Wesson leaving Massachusetts.
Another sign of powerful institutions moving away.
What's happening is that red states are more attractive to individuals who want freedom, and blue states are more attractive to people who want to be told what to do and how to do it.
Look, I'm not saying, you know, you're free to live the way you want to live.
But over time, people are self-segregating.
People in California who can't stand the system put in place by Democrats and the Uniparty are moving to Texas.
Texas is actually becoming more red only because of transplants who believe in this vision of Texas, when native Texans are actually more Democrat.
We're also seeing Miami go from blue to red.
I mean, weird stuff is happening.
And we've got more data suggesting people want this country to break apart.
And I'm going to show you this.
But we also have an interesting analysis piece about the idea of national divorce and why it's important.
Because it would avoid violence.
It doesn't mean there can't be alliances.
One of the biggest fears is that China would then take over.
But if there are two different distinct nations, in fact, that could empower People in this country.
Because then people are able to live the way they want to live.
The Democrats can have their strict border controls for vaccine mandates.
The Republicans can have all the guns in the world.
And then, there you go.
Wouldn't that make people a bit happier?
More productive?
And then they can cooperate on national and global defense.
I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert on all that, but let's read the news and see what's going on with this poll before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com, become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as an ad-free experience as you browse the website plus.
We are launching a new show today.
It's actually already up on Spotify.
iTunes takes a little bit longer.
They have to approve of it.
But for those that are members at TimCast.com, you've already seen it.
We already announced the other day the name of the show, and people have probably been able to find it.
It's a fully produced mystery and paranormal true crime style podcast, investigative journalism.
You'll want to check this out.
That's going to be announced tonight.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now with your friends and this show if you really do want to support our work.
Let's read from Newsweek.
Now, before I do, I might add Newsweek, of course, is framing this as though it is the Trump supporters who are at fault.
Saying, majority of Trump voters want to split the nation into red and blue halves.
Yes, and 41% of Biden supporters want to do the same.
Newsweek reports.
A majority of Trump voters want to split the country into red and blue halves, according to a new poll conducted by the University of Virginia's Nonpartisan Center for Politics.
Roughly 52% of people who voted for Republican former President Trump either somewhat agree or strongly agree that it's time to split the country, favoring that either red or blue states secede from the union the poll found.
Comparatively.
41% of people who voted for Joe Biden agree with the idea.
Splitting the country would likely cause massive conflict.
Maybe.
There's an argument I have we'll get to that might not actually be the case.
In fact, many prominent modern thinkers say it would prevent conflict.
No one from Texas wants to go to New York and fight anybody.
But we don't like the fact that New Yorkers go to Congress and then try to impose laws on Texas.
And people in Texas don't like that, you know, and the people in New York aren't happy with people in Texas going to Congress.
And it's reflected in the body politic and the statements made by people like Bernie Sanders when he says, two senators should not be able to hold this country hostage.
And everyone's like, Bernie, can we remind you that there's 50 other Republican senators who are saying no?
But they don't view you as part of their country.
And I'll pull up that.
Actually, let me just... I don't think I have this tweet from Bernie Sanders.
Oh, I do.
I do have it.
Here you go.
Bernie Sanders said two senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want.
We must stand with the working families of our country.
We must combat climate change.
We must delay passing the infrastructure bill until we pass a strong reconciliation bill.
52 senators said no, Bernie.
25 states still exist.
This is how it manifests.
Bernie Sanders doesn't care what you think.
In your state.
He only cares about the 50 states where the Democrats have won.
But guess what?
West Virginia?
Sorry, Bernie.
West Virginia is a red state.
And boy, howdy, it is the second most Trump-supporting state in the country.
So don't be surprised Manchin is saying no.
Manchin may be a Democrat, but he won because people in West Virginia liked the guy, not because of his party, and I will tell you this, I strongly believe a Democrat will not win in West Virginia in the next election.
They gonna say.
When 11 Southern states seceded from the Union in 1860, it marked the start of the U.S.
Civil War.
The resulting four-year, 27-day battle ended with more than 498,000 soldier deaths, making it the country's deadliest conflict of all time, according to the U.S.
Department of Veteran Affairs.
Red and blue states refer to the states that vote Republican.
We get that.
Election maps show states as entirely red or blue to help viewers understand how many state electoral votes they have.
However, some political thinkers reject the concept of red and blue states entirely.
That's because all U.S.
states actually contain Republican, Democratic, and other types of voters and non-voters as well.
Traditional U.S.
electoral maps not only illustrate polarization, they can exacerbate it.
No state is strictly red or blue.
They are shades of purple, according to the website Purple States of America.
The website and others like it think that red and blue state maps focus too much on political disagreements, reinforcing partisan gridlock and social instability.
Instead, purple states offer a visual example of overlapping commonalities.
The rest of UVA's poll also focuses on commonalities between Trump and Biden voters.
In the poll, similar majorities of both Biden and Trump voters express some distrust for voters, elected officials, and media sources that they associate with the other side.
Both groups of voters also view the U.S.
government system as one that's rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful, undermining each group's faith in the nation's representative democracy.
The UVA's Center for Politics hopes that further research through its Project Home Fire initiative can identify policy and issue areas that both Biden and Trump voters care about.
In doing so, the project seeks to discover specific pathways for voters on both sides to open their minds to mutually beneficial compromise that accrues to the bigger goal of preserving, protecting, and expanding America's universally representative democracy, the project's press release said.
unidentified
This poll 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.
It was a couple of years ago, I think the number was in the 20s, 20% or so, in the 30s.
You have more information coming out showing that more people, more and more people are saying enough.
And rapidly, too.
So I think it's admirable to try and be like, we need to preserve this country and bring people together, but it ain't gonna happen, my friends.
I'll throw you back to this poll.
We have this from DailyVoice.com.
New poll reveals percentages of Americans who want to secede by region.
But you need to understand this data.
And you need to understand the nuance of it.
I have talked about this before, but for those that are maybe missing this context, it's very important.
We can see that they divide the country into five regions.
You have the Pacific, the Mountain Region, the Heartland, the South, and the Northeast.
And they're going to show you which political faction favors secession to which degree.
In the South, 66% of Republicans favor secession.
A large portion of Democrats do as well.
I believe the number is pretty small, but it looks around 50%.
In the heartland, it's mostly the independents.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
In the South, it's independent voters, not Democrats.
Democrats don't favor secession.
50% of independents.
In the heartland, 43% of independents, the plurality.
Then you have Democrats in the Northeast at 39%, and the Pacific, 47% of plurality.
In the mountain region, 43%.
Now, I tracked all of the states by population, And normalizing for population and party, 37.2% of all people in the U.S.
favor the U.S.
breaking apart in some fashion.
Now, what that means is, on average, 37.2% of each region favors breaking their region off.
This is a huge number.
In the American Revolution, it was a comparable amount that wanted independence, and it was a slightly smaller amount that were loyalists to the British government, and most people just said, I don't care, leave me alone.
Those are the other numbers we're missing.
How many are saying, I don't care, leave me alone?
When you have numbers this large, and people just basically saying, yo, we need to break this up, It looks like we're driving in that direction.
Empires don't last forever, and people have said they usually last 250 years or so.
Now, the U.S.
may be just about that old, but we weren't always an empire, so it's hard to know how much time we have left.
That being said, the Soviet Union only lasted around 69 years.
The U.S.
may actually break apart.
Now, Bill Maher has that segment he talked about a while ago where he's like, it can't happen because the Mason-Dixon line would go through Nana's kitchen.
Because he doesn't know what a civil war is.
And I know many of you may have heard me say it, but again, for those that haven't, because not everybody watches every video I do, the American Civil War was not a traditional civil war.
You had sovereign states lining up against other sovereign states.
It was just a war.
That's what it was.
It was just a war.
Look at the Spanish Civil War.
Look at other revolutions if you want to understand Civil War.
Insurgent pockets popping up in different areas of the country, and factions fighting over control of that country.
The federal government may fight to keep the Union intact, but Democrats are going to fight to protect Democrat territory, Republicans territory.
Republicans will fight to protect Republican territory, and you know what will happen?
You'll basically have three factions.
Where the Democrats are gonna be like, we don't care about Texas.
Let Texas do what it wants.
Texas, I don't care about California.
California, go away.
And then you go to the federal government being like, no.
In the end, if the federal government is the only thing trying to keep things together, I don't see it succeeding.
With the American Civil War as we know it, the North was just straight up saying, slavery is morally repugnant and we will invade to stop it.
I think we all understand that.
It was a war.
Much like with World War II.
What Nazi Germany was doing was horrible.
Now we didn't, most people didn't know, I don't think we knew about the Holocaust until after the war, but we knew bad things were happening.
We knew they were invading other countries and it needed to be stopped.
There was a moral crisis where we said we must intervene.
Not a big fan of intervention, mind you, but I can certainly understand World War II and the American Civil War.
However, today, we won't have that.
There's no moral issue by which Democrats are going to want to invade Texas.
They're just going to be like, do whatever you want, fine, you plague rats, you maggots.
And the Texans are going to be like, we don't care, do your thing.
It's the federal government, but they will not have the power to do anything about it.
And there are developments on this front, as well as evidence of crisis.
Take a look at this.
Lawmaker wants New Hampshire to declare independence.
It's actually, I think, now around five or six lawmakers in New Hampshire, but the reality
is New Hampshire is the home of the Free State Project, which if you watch Tim Kast's IRL,
you heard all about several times.
People moving to New Hampshire and they pledge to just vote libertarian.
And then there are people who track the politicians and say, are they actually for freedom?
And what do they do?
Repeal laws.
They like repealed a window tinting law.
They're like, why not?
Tint your windows all day and night.
The Free Staters have tremendous power in New Hampshire, and more are going there by the minute.
Now, will New Hampshire actually secede?
I think if they remain on this track, and everything we see happening in the U.S.
continues, then yes.
Yeah, they will.
And what can the federal government do about it?
Well, I think what we will see is soft secession.
And what does that mean?
It means that places like New Hampshire will just stop cooperating with the feds.
People in New Hampshire won't be paying income taxes, they won't be abiding by federal law, DEA, ATF, etc., and the feds will have no power to actually do anything about it.
The federal government does not have the level of officers to deal with states breaking away.
1.3 million people in New Hampshire.
Imagine if all of them stopped paying taxes because they view themselves as independent.
A soft secession.
They would allow the feds to still operate their post offices and their roads and their military bases saying, we don't care.
You just won't enforce it on us because we don't comply.
The feds know that they would lose if they tried to get involved in some kind of conflict with a state, so they would ignore it.
This example was given to us by our guest the other night who mentioned the Amish.
I didn't know this.
They don't pay Social Security tax.
They're exempt from a bunch of laws because they just absolutely refuse to comply.
And if that's the case, and we're moving in this direction, it will happen.
I want to stress Bernie Sanders' tweet as we move forward, saying that two senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want.
This is a really good example of how Bernie Sanders, the Democrats, don't care about the other half of this country.
They say we're the majority, so there it is.
Fifty senators are saying no to you, Bernie.
It's not two.
But this is the example you need to understand when they say, we don't care about you.
We don't advocate for you.
We don't believe in you.
You're in the way.
He's complaining that two senators who are Democrats don't blindly agree with him.
Now let's talk about where this country is going when you have things like this.
This is from NBC4 Washington.
Man throws Molotov cocktail into Austin Democratic Party HQ.
An arson investigation is underway in Austin after a man wearing an American flag bandana was caught on video throwing a Molotov cocktail into the Travis County Democratic Party headquarters on Wednesday.
This is important to understand.
When they say there would be conflict, what do you think happens to Texas if Texas secedes from the Union and Austin is overwhelmingly Democrat?
The Democrats in Austin and in Dallas and these urban areas will call out to the federal government and say, they don't represent us, it's illegal, you can't secede, and they would demand federal assistance.
Now, the feds may come in.
The military may come in, the National Guard perhaps.
But the National Guard who live in Texas would probably just adhere to the law of the governor and the political body of Texas, not to the federal government.
I mean, remains to be seen, to be honest.
But the Democrats are going to say, help.
In which case, the feds would come in and there would be serious internal conflict in that state.
But what happens if, like, five or six states do it all at the exact same time?
The federal government would not have the ability to do anything about it.
Because you're not going to see blue states marching into red states.
The one thing that may happen, however, is if blue states send their National Guard, which gets federalized, into the red states that are trying to secede, because the red states would not be seceding with a union.
In which case, the union can draw power from the blue states and then send them to the red states.
If the Democrats in Austin say, Democrats help us!
The Democrats will.
So perhaps, if there is a national divorce, you'll get chaos.
I can certainly understand why it's happening.
Take a look at these two stories.
We have this from Post Millennial.
Black woman charged after allegedly posing as white male and sending violent racist notes to neighbors.
Hate crime hoaxes.
They're a thing.
Here's one.
Texas man, 24, admits shooting at Minneapolis police station during riot.
This is Black Lives Matter.
He's a Boogaloo boy.
They're not pro-cop.
They're not pro-government.
And so, the media's trying to make it seem like this guy's far right.
I don't think it matters.
I bring this example up to show you that people are actively trying to cause harm, be it through psychological manipulation or physical violence.
We're at that point.
It is happening.
People say, oh, it can never happen here.
It is happening now.
Here you go from the Daily Wire.
Panama's foreign minister.
We warned Biden about Haitian migrant crisis.
60,000 more are coming.
We have no border.
The people of Texas are getting fed up.
The southern border counties are all voting Republican because they're demanding help to stop the crisis.
And if the federal government won't do it, if Biden is actively calling for these people to come, and he did, he said, surge the border.
Everyone wants to come, come.
How long will these people sit back until they finally say no?
But it's worse than you realize.
According to a report from NBC, quote, as many as 400,000 migrants are heading to the U.S.
border, NBC News reports.
An unprecedented number, nearly doubling the stunning numbers we've seen in the last two months, which read a 21-year high.
Let me tell you what happens.
California is a sanctuary state.
They have broken federal law and the feds won't do anything about it.
Okay, where's the income tax sanctuary?
You think I'm kidding?
What if New Hampshire declares income tax sanctuary?
The feds do nothing.
In many states, they've declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, many counties.
I think in Ohio, there's areas where the cops are instructed to arrest the ATF if they try and come in and enforce action.
In Texas, they've announced they're going to make their own suppressors, and the feds can't do anything about it.
The federal government's power is in disarray.
It is collapsing in California.
They say immigration laws be damned.
And the feds do nothing about it.
The entire state.
In fact, non-citizens can vote in some elections in California.
So what do you think happens if Texas and New Hampshire say, No more income tax, we're an income tax sanctuary.
Why not?
What if Texas said, we are hereby an income tax sanctuary, no one has to pay it anymore, and the state will be taxing you all at 5% more?
So the average person sees their taxes drop substantially, Texas absorbs all that money, and then gets to do what they want with it?
What are the feds going to do to the state?
Nothing.
That's it, nothing.
Because California has already proven the emperor has no clothes.
If you think the republic stands, but California can straight up say, we will not follow federal law, which it's been going on for some time, I don't know what to tell you.
And more and more states are absolutely moving in this direction.
Take a look at this story from Jason Bailey.
Ochsner Health in LA is now mandating vaccine for spouses of employees.
If your spouse is on your insurance and does not get vaccinated,
they'll be imposing a $100 per pay period fee.
What started as a $100 incentive to get the jab has now turned into a recurring tax.
Let me repeat that for you.
If your wife or husband, who doesn't work there, is unvaccinated, they're gonna fine you $100 per pay period.
And that's massive.
I mean, I don't know how much these people are making per hour, but if they're making $20 an hour, I mean, that's taking away five hours of labor.
That's a lot of money.
Unless your spouse is vaccinated.
I highlight this just to show you what is driving massive divide in this country.
Florida.
Ron DeSantis straight up said, we will not be doing this.
People have a right to choose.
I believe in a right to choose.
That's why I moved to West Virginia.
But in blue states, they believe they have the right to impose even on your families.
And the Democrats vote for this.
I think the problem with libertarians and conservatives is that they genuinely think other people want freedom.
They don't.
You need to understand and empathize with other people.
They assume that someone in California He genuinely wants to be free and opposes the government.
Time and time again, the people of California prove to us they love it.
They want to be told what to do.
They revel in it.
And they're allowed to feel that way and be that way, in which case, if you don't like it and you live in California, it's time to leave.
Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Iowa.
New Hampshire, West Virginia, there are many places.
And now with remote working and with Starlink coming out, there's an opportunity to basically live anywhere and not have to deal with this stuff.
Now, ultimately, I think in the end what's happening is hyperpolarization is resulting in people separating each other.
California has just announced a vaccine mandate for K-12 students in public and private schools.
That's amazing!
Five-year-olds K-12.
That means five-year-olds.
Okay.
I'm not going to opine on vaccines.
I'm going to talk about the policy.
What that means is if you are someone who wants the decision to be made for your family and you want long-term data, California says no.
Do what you want.
I say you take your kids and you go somewhere that represents your values.
Because I think your kids are the most important thing.
But if you agree with it, then you should be happy.
The divide is happening.
I want to throw it now, on the way out, to this article by David Riaboy.
We've had him on the IRL podcast.
He says, National divorce is expensive, but it's worth every penny.
The national divorce discussion prepares the ground for crucial thinking about what comes next in America, as the country grows even more divided, bitter, and angry.
David says, For the last several years, I've been among a handful of commentators, along with good friends Michael Malice, Jesse Kelly, Michael Anton, and others, talking about the possibility or desirability of a national divorce, the political separation of blue and red America, or to get more specific and inflammatory, the breakup or dissolution of the United States.
This week, my friend Carol Markowicz has written a typically thoughtful piece on the subject of the New York Post and concludes that, As much as many people long for some kind of separation that would solve the many real problems of America's current disunion... 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 of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
As with any breakup or divorce, even if we had a popular consensus for a national divorce in principle, there are all kinds of details and massive, very thorny ones, like who gets which territories, populations, industries, or nuclear weapons caches.
That could cause tumultuous, potentially violent negotiations.
All these points of contention are very real and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
They're not going anywhere.
The seriousness of these issues and their daunting solutions are meant to prove that the breakup of the U.S.
will always be an impossibility.
That's not right!
National divorce or some other more tragic and chaotic outcome won't be impossible forever.
Despite heaping dollops of patriotic propaganda, which admittedly is essential to maintenance of the citizens' faith in the regime, one day, the U.S.
will end.
History teaches us that regimes, like all human creations, rise and fall.
And world-bestriding empires fall harder, faster, and more surely than that.
Admitting that is a possibility isn't as accurate as understanding it as a certainty.
Yet the timeline is hazy, but it's coming.
And as one approaches the crisis and contempt between Americas build beyond what is currently imaginable, those thorny points of contention Heretofore, enough to reduce national divorce to a laugh line, become real objects of debate and deliberative thought.
There is a price, for example, at which the hard work of pulling oil from the ground in a place is so prohibitively expensive, even discussing it seems foolish.
However, when circumstances change, maybe global supply wanes and prices rise dramatically, areas believed to be too costly for drilling suddenly become feasible.
I'll stop from here and give you an example.
Fracking, for instance, was long deemed too expensive and not worth it.
The amount of energy put in to get natural gas and shale oil out just didn't make sense.
But then gas became substantially more expensive, and all of a sudden people said, for every dollar we put in, we'll get two out?
Okay.
Fracking makes sense now.
The left hates fracking.
The right likes fracking.
What do you do?
I'll tell you this.
If the states separated, I believe it will be the blue states that will crumble and fall almost overnight.
Then they would start fighting to steal from the red states.
Why?
Blue states may have intellectual property, they may have the hubs of media and communications and technology, but they don't have energy production and they don't like energy production.
They try to ban energy production in many ways, and the red states would immediately open the door and allow all sorts of energy exploration, which in turn would mean red states would rapidly expand and grow with access to this energy, and they need only give it to themselves.
Plus, they're more capitalist, decentralized, and they'd flourish.
David goes on to say, It's interesting that those with the strongest objections to national divorce today seem to base their admittedly legitimate worry about those horrific split-up scenarios rather than make a principled Lincoln-esque argument about the insolubility of the Union.
Of course, appeals to boomer patriotism still exist, but I'm not sure if that kind of thing gets very many people going anymore.
I'll add too, Millennials are buying guns.
Pro-gun sentiment is on the rise.
People will be armed.
This cannot go on forever.
He goes on to say, we'll just scroll down though to get to the point of the article.
He says, For more than a century, progressives have dedicated themselves to abolishing the
legitimacy of federalism and the reconstituting of the federal government and the courts in order
to make its application and practice all but impossible.
Over time, as their fanaticism grew, the left's position hardened.
From the mere undesirability of local differences and state sovereignty, to the illegitimacy, unjustness, and unfathomable evil of such an arrangement.
In order to return to a time of relative public consensus on these things, one side must impose its will on the other.
While Red America isn't really interested in imposing its will on Blue America, it's clear the reverse is emphatically not true.
In a famous 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan said about the last century's Cold War, there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second, surrender.
This might be the unstated solution proffered by mainstream right commentariat, But is this the best we can do?
Because just over the horizon of what we can imagine from our vantage point, national divorce isn't at all an immediate action plan, or at least I don't see it as such.
Rather, it is a rhetorical strategy to prepare the ground for crucial discussions about what comes next in America, as the country grows even more divided, bitter, and angry.
More than anything else, it is a reminder for Red America to think about economic and cultural autonomy for itself and what it would take to get there.
Autonomy for Red America is of crucial importance, regardless of the status of political or real separation.
It is the ability for Americans to be self-sufficient from the financial, educational, and cultural institutions that are hostile to its beliefs and way of life and make reconciliation increasingly impossible.
I'll put it this way.
I do not want it to happen.
I do not want this country to fall apart.
This is an amazing country.
It's the best country.
It really is.
I've been to many countries.
But it's happening.
The border is broken.
The federal government is broken.
Biden is ruling by decree.
There's violence in the streets.
Firebombing of political headquarters.
Mass rioting over political issues.
Half the country says no.
Half the country says no to the other half.
How much longer can we last in this regard?
You can sit back and act like it's not happening.
And that's what people have been saying to me for years when I warned of this.
And people said it was crazy.
And still to this day there are people saying it's crazy when it's literally happening.
We have more and more examples.
We have more and more polls.
We are driving down the road in the same direction.
At a certain point, it is time to recognize it is happening.
And we can stop it.
But I don't know how.
And I'm not sure that it's going to be easy.
It may be nigh impossible.
Simply because this country is so divided.
There are two distinct cultures that do not view each other as salvageable.
The left says the right is a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists who can't be trusted, and the right says the same of the left.
It doesn't matter who's right.
They're saying it.
I guess we can only sit back and wait, because no one's gonna make any moves until eventually.
It's too late.
I'll tell you what I did.
I moved to a red state.
I've decided to, you know, get more into homesteading, self-sufficiency.
At the very least, it's good for the environment, and it teaches personal responsibility.
In the absolute worst-case scenario, at least I'll have that going for me.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you all then.
Not only did he say he would win the fight, but he says, quote, I'd end him.
Now, my friends, I am extremely happy to see this tweet.
It lightened my mood, made me laugh quite a great deal.
And if there is anything to suggest that we live in a simulation, it is certainly this.
And not only are we in a simulation, it is some kind of entertainment comedy clown show.
All right, let's slow down.
Joe Rogan has been in the news quite a bit over statements about vaccines and medications and things like that.
And there are, I think, questions that can be asked about some of the things he said.
Right now in the news, they're saying, criticizing Joe Rogan.
Daily Mail calls him an anti-vaxxer, saying anti-vaxxer Joe Rogan suggests Biden faked getting a booster shot on TV because if he had an unexpected adverse reaction, then it would scupper his whole plan.
Yeah, that's a bit unfair, Daily Mail.
That's not, I wouldn't say, appropriate framing.
When I first read this headline, I was like, oh, come on, Joe.
Did you really say that Joe Biden faked getting a booster shot?
And then I read it, and I said, oh, Joe didn't say that.
Joe's basically like, He's saying, you know, he asked his guests, do you think they really gave him the booster?
Because, you know, what if he had an adverse reaction on live TV or something?
I mean, that's really bad for the president.
According to the Daily Mail, they say the adverse reaction rate is like 0.6%.
So that's really low.
But what?
One in like 180 or so around there?
You know, so I think it's an interesting question, but Joe didn't, you know, he suggests it.
Well, I think it's actually a fair point, but I would err on the side of I think they just gave Joe Biden the booster shot, and they did it on TV, and they have doctors there.
And it's just, you know, things are typically much simpler than this.
So we'll read through this.
We also have information Merck is announcing they've got a COVID potential pill treatment, which I am going to come right out and say it is not approved.
Do not be rushing the store to buy these pills from Merck or whatever.
Talk to your doctor about what's right for you.
But of course, we've got to talk about what Cenk Uygur is saying, why he's saying it, why he's being offered $1,000 to fight Joe Rogan, and then we'll get into this stuff.
But I want to stress something with this Merck pill.
I don't care who makes the pill or whatever it is.
First of all, I ain't here to give anybody medical advice other than talk to a trusted medical professional and don't read these news stories and then rush out and buy stuff.
Pfizer's got some pill, Merck's got some pill, and a lot of people tout ivermectin and HCQ and whatever.
None of those Are actually approved treatments and whatever that means to you, that's the point.
And so, whenever I say, talk to your doctor, I just really don't understand the people who are frustrated by this.
And I get these messages periodically, yo, if you don't trust your doctor, you've got a bad doctor, like then find a doctor who's going to inform you on all of this stuff.
And don't just read news articles.
I don't care if it's for Merck or Pfizer.
In fact, I'll tell you this.
I would strongly recommend against internet news-based prescribed treatments because there's no difference, in my opinion, from some PhD virologist or evolutionary biologist going on their show and touting the effects of, say, ivermectin, and Reuters coming out and saying a major pharmaceutical is claiming their product they want to sell you is effective.
What really matters is Talking to medical professionals you trust, doing, you know, independent research, and then making the right medical decision for you, which doesn't come from me.
I can't tell you what to do.
And I defer to that.
I think, you know, what is it?
Monoclonal antibodies or EUA?
But let's take a look at this.
Cenk Uygur says... Well, actually, let me pull up... Let's get the chronology going here.
Cenk Uygur tweeted, To all the loser Joe Rogan fans crying over my attack on his freedom, hypocrisy, and stupidity, are you guys part of the crew or do you kiss his ass for fun?
I thought he was a big boy who could handle himself.
If he doesn't like my free speech, he can grow a pair and defend himself.
You know what I love the most about things like this?
Is that Joe didn't say anything to any of these people.
It's like, I can just imagine it now.
Joe's at his gym, working out, playing pool, or shooting crossbows, eating elk, or whatever it is he's doing, and people are talking about him.
Like me, right now.
And Joe probably has no idea.
Although I'm sure many of his friends have been like, hey, Cenk Uygur says he can beat you up!
And then Joe had a good laugh and that was about it.
But what's funny is Cenk Uygur will say something about Joe Rogan.
Joe probably doesn't care or respond.
He's too busy for that.
Then people who are fans of Joe Rogan respond.
So Cenk Uygur then says, if he doesn't like my free speech, as if Joe Rogan said something to incite his fans or whatever.
When Joe doesn't ever do that.
And here's the thing.
There are certain circumstances where I will talk about people like Cenk Uygur.
In this circumstance, I especially think it's relevant, considering this guy's got a massive progressive channel and people watch him.
And that matters.
Exactly in the same way it matters what Joe Rogan says.
You know, but Joe typically leaves people out of it.
He'll talk about politicians and people, you know, corporations and things like that and he doesn't really talk a whole lot about other people and that's, you know, I think he may sometimes, probably to a lesser degree than I would, like I don't think Joe would ever talk about something like this.
Well, in response to this tweet, a Twitter user named Mr. M says, I'll make a $1,000 donation to your trash network or your charity of choice to see you call Rogan, who is not only the most successful podcast in history, but also a black belt in MMA, a loser to his face.
Joe Rogan has a black belt, I believe, in Taekwondo.
It's a very viral video.
Where Joe teaches how to do the spin kick thing.
I don't know anything about it, but it's amazing.
It's really impressive.
Joe Rogan is absolutely ripped.
He is a black belt.
I've been to his facility on more than one occasion.
He has a massive gym where he works out and trains.
And Cenk Uygur has the nerve to come out and tweet Deal.
Easiest $1,000 I've ever made.
You think he's going to assault me?
Sure, whatever.
That's incredibly dumb, but also wouldn't work.
Okay, let's slow down there, Cenk.
The beginning of this tweet, I can accept.
If someone said, Tim, I dare you to call Cenk Uygur a loser to his face, and I give you a thousand bucks, well, first of all, I'd say I'm not gonna do that because that's just, I don't know, inappropriate, lowbrow...
Trash.
I don't care to do that.
I would politely approach Cenk Uygur and ask him questions, which I've done before, and he screamed in my face, confusing the hell out of me.
At Politicon, I was like, hey Cenk, you guys posted a video with my name in it, and then he started yelling at me, screaming.
I'm like, why are you yelling at me, dude?
I'm trying to talk to you.
You know me.
I know you.
And he screams in my face.
I wouldn't go up to anybody and call him a loser for any amount of money.
I just, I wouldn't do that.
Now, I'm sure a lot of people would do so, especially for a thousand bucks.
But let's be real.
If I walked up to Cenk Uygur and called him a loser to his face, he would just call me a loser back.
That's about—I mean, he'd probably yell at me, like he did last time.
But if Cenk Uygur went up to Joe Rogan and called him a loser, Joe would be like, all right, man, whatever.
He wouldn't assault him.
But here's where Cenk falls apart.
He says, it wouldn't work.
I'm much larger than Joe, and I've fought my whole life.
I'd end him.
But grown-ups don't do that.
I'll send you the P.O.
box to send a check to later.
Cenk!
He will not end Joe Rogan.
He would... Okay.
You put Cenk Uygur and Joe Rogan in the ring.
In two seconds, Joe would have him in a submission.
Like, People need to understand, I am not a fighter.
I am a skater.
I can do spins and flips and grinds and flippity-flops and all that stuff, but I ain't gonna be fighting anybody.
I'll tell you this, being physically fit and skating every day provides advantages and agility and stuff like that, but I will tell you this.
Okay, if you put me and a regular average person into a fight, It would probably be close, and I don't know necessarily who would win.
I think having, you know, being that I have a low resting heart rate, and that I exercise all the time, I might be at an advantage, but I don't know how to fight.
Maybe I should go and learn, right?
When it comes to fighting, man, grappling.
If you know submissions, if you've wrestled, if you know jujitsu, Joe's gonna walk up to this guy and he's gonna just swoop and then have Jack pounding on the floor like, what just happened?
People don't understand that, you know, they have this misconception about what fighting is or what it means, and Cenk thinks because he's big, Joe can't stop him.
Joe Rogan has talked quite a bit about MMA and transgender athletes.
Joe has talked quite a bit about fist size, joint size, striking force.
And in one of the segments he did a long time ago about transgender MMA fighters, he said,
men have bigger joints, better grip, bigger hands, more striking power than women.
But grappling technique, a woman who knows some missions and grappling technique can
win a fight against a man.
And that means Cenk Uygur would lose to probably any female MMA fighter.
And I'm not saying that to be like women are weaker.
I'm saying like if you think you can beat a black belt Joe Rogan who's ripped, we could
take an up and coming amateur female MMA fighter and you think you're bigger than her.
Bro, she would put you in a submission in two seconds, and you'd be begging for mercy.
That's a thing.
And you know what?
Maybe I'm wrong.
But I'm taking it from Joe Rogan himself when he said, you know, there have been, you know, I think Fallon Fox lost a fight because of grappling technique.
Yeah, if someone gets on your back and puts you in a choke hold or, you know, gets your arm or whatever, I don't know what they're called, and you're done.
They got you.
I mean, it's like that hold where you can put someone's arm up against their back and they just submit.
Jenk thinks he's going to win.
Now, the interesting thing is that Jenk's whole criticism of Joe Rogan, this turning into somehow him saying he could win against Joe Rogan, has a lot to do with Joe's talk about vaccines and stuff.
So let's, we'll do a hard segue and talk about what's been going on with Joe Rogan and booster shots and this Merck stuff.
The Daily Mail calls Joe Rogan an anti-vaxxer.
You know, I will tell you this.
I really don't like doing segments about commentators.
Talking about other people who talk about things.
I'm not a big fan.
There's a lot of YouTubers, almost all the content they produce will be like talking about me or Dave Rubin or Michael Tracy and it's like, yo, are there political issues you could maybe talk about instead of like what commentary is doing?
But I will say, Joe Rogan in this instance brings up an interesting concept, one I disagree with but I find interesting, and I want to highlight, at least with the Cenk Uygur thing, first of all, I'll just come out and admit it, it's hilarious.
I couldn't help it, we talked about it on IRL yesterday, I couldn't help it, I have to!
It's going viral on Twitter, it's one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
Or seen?
Have to talk about it.
I just have to.
I am but a human man, I have my weaknesses, and as much as often I'd be like, this is lowbrow and meaningless, it must be discussed.
It's just too good.
But there is another thing here that needs to be addressed, and that's the level of discourse in this country.
Like, Cenk tweeting he would end Joe Rogan is just... Why are you talking about Joe Rogan, man?
I'll talk about Joe Rogan in this context.
He is the most influential podcaster, and he talks about things that are greatly influential that spark a conversation for which we can address.
The same is true for Bill Maher.
I'm fairly certain That the TimCast Network gets substantially more views than Bill Maher, but Bill Maher has mainstream influence.
If he says something, the media picks it up and carries it.
They don't do that for me.
And I gotta be honest, it may be a good thing, because I don't need the crackpot weirdos of the establishment to be, you know, hounding me all the time.
And we can have this conversation, and we can have TimCast.com.
But Joe brings up interesting concepts that trickle down to a larger conversation, and then ultimately, you know, for the most part, Joe doesn't address the aftermath of that.
I'm not saying he has to.
I'm saying he'll have a conversation, people will talk about it.
The interesting thing is, you know, I had a debate with Jack Murphy a couple weeks ago, and then we had a sort of pseudo-debate, like a follow-up debate on the Tim Kast Show, members-only show, this Wednesday.
We were talking about freedom and choice.
Jack said, you know, he wants to get his—he has no choice but to get his kid vaccinated if a kid's going to play baseball.
I said, if you have principles, stand up for them.
It went viral.
All of a sudden, there was a big conversation happening around, and I imagine that's what happens every time with Joe Rogan.
But let me just address why Joe Rogan's in the news and why you're getting this criticism from Cenk Uygur with something interesting that Joe brought up.
Daily Mail says podcast heavyweight Joe Rogan questioned whether Joe Biden got a real booster shot of the COVID-19 vaccine on live TV or whether it was a publicity stunt, saying that Biden could have risked blacking out or fainting due to an adverse reaction to the shot.
Quote, Do you think that was a real booster?
Rogan asked his guest host, former CIA officer Mike Baker, who responded, I hadn't thought
about it before, but you know what?
When I watched it on TV, when I watched him getting the shot, his mask on, all I could
think of was this was performance art.
So the next step of performance art would be like not giving him the booster, but giving
him a shot.
The CDC maintains serious side effects from any COVID-19 vaccines are extremely rare.
Well, they say this.
The CDC reports that among test groups, 0.6% of people over 18 experienced a serious reaction to any of the vaccines that required hospitalization.
I don't think 0.6% is extremely rare.
I think that's uncommon.
I'm pretty sure the Daily Mail is wrong on that.
I mean, they're calling Joe an anti-vaxxer.
I'm not going to trust their assessment, but 0.6%?
You sure about that, Daily Mail?
I'm pretty sure it's much, much lower than that.
I think they mean to say reaction of any adverse reaction, not serious.
The serious adverse reactions are extremely rare.
Like, we've seen warnings about myocarditis, you know, fluid and swelling around the heart and things like that.
But it is exceptionally rare.
What people need to understand is that if you give out... I always refer to this, you guys, okay?
So the people who are like, Tim's chilling for vaccines.
If 100 phones are given to celebrities and 1% of those phones break, you get one broken phone, you get one angry celebrity, and everyone says, sucks for him, his phone broke.
If you give out 100 million phones and 1% break the same margin of error, you get 1 million people posting online about how their phones are broken, and everyone will just assume the entire phone line is bad when 99% of these phones are fine.
I've been taught.
I've been I called the scaling problem.
I talk about it all the time, and we see the same thing with the vaccines.
Now look, People have said, you know, Tim, it's really annoying when you say, talk to your doctor, because my doctor said this.
I'm like, why?
Look, I hire a carpenter, and if he builds me a doghouse, it doesn't work, I'm going to be like, I'm not going to hire this guy again.
There are amazing doctors out there.
We've had many people on the show who have talked about their doctors and the good advice they've gotten and the well-researched things they've done, and there are a lot of people getting prescribed treatments that YouTube would ban you for.
Joe Rogan, for instance.
Now, don't take any advice.
I'm not giving advice.
I think you should just talk to your doctor.
But I do think it's important to point out the scaling problem when it comes to vaccines.
You administer 330 million vaccines, and yes, you will get a scaling problem.
Because of the massive density of vaccines administered, you'll see high rates of stories in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
That doesn't mean it's proportionally more than any other vaccine.
We just have done this en masse.
Now, there's questions about that, questions about pressuring people to ignore their doctor's orders or whatever, but that's something I think people should absolutely consider.
I am not some tribalist who's going to come out and shill for any of these alternative treatments.
I'm not going to shill for Merck or Pfizer.
I'm not going to shill for Joe Rogan.
I think he makes an interesting point about propaganda, PR, and government.
Why should they even entertain a 0.001% risk to the president?
Well, I gotta be honest.
I think Joe Biden got the booster.
I just don't think the world is that mystical.
Or, while there are certainly propaganda campaigns, while there are certainly conspiracies, while there are certainly strange occurrences, it's just a dice roll.
I like going to the casino every so often.
You know, I've met some people there, some good people, fans of the show.
We've had some great conversations.
And I function very much through probabilities.
I make decisions off of what I see as being the most probable and what makes the least amount of assumptions.
Occam's razor.
So, you know, is it fun to make a bet on, say, you know, 26 on the roulette wheel?
Yeah, but it's going to come up, what, 1 in 37?
So it's very unlikely you're going to get that number.
You'll probably just lose that bet.
Even if you put the bet down 37 times, you probably still would not see it come up.
I'm not going to do the math on what it would be, but the point is...
What do you play when you go to the casino?
You play blackjack because it has one of the lowest house edges, and you put money on the don't pass line on craps.
Why?
It has one of the lowest house edges.
But still, the house always wins.
The point is, I make my decisions based on probability.
I can see a lot of people opposing the establishment.
I can see the establishment media lying and things like that, and I can see good reason why, if this really was a dangerous, you know, vaccine, they wouldn't want to give it to Biden.
The reality is, the vaccine's safe, guys.
You don't have to get it.
It's your choice.
I'm against the mandates.
But I think the vaccine is overwhelmingly safe.
We see a lot of stories, you know, where they're like, oh, look, bad thing happened.
And I'm like, yeah, but come on.
336 million doses administered?
If you don't want to get it, you can talk to your doctor.
I don't know.
You don't take advice from me.
I'm saying you make your own medical decisions.
There's a difference between liberty and, you know, medical advice.
And mine is just you should have that choice.
I take a look at the media, I take a look at the CDC, I take a look at the FDA, I take a look at the counterclaims, and I'll tell you what I see.
Joe Rogan brings up a good point, and I think it's a good question to ask.
I think the simple answer is probably, I'd be willing to bet 99% chance it's just the booster shot.
Joe Biden is old, and I believe they're much more worried about Biden getting COVID than they are about an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
I really do think so.
Look, I've seen a bunch of stories from, you know, the anti-establishment.
It's not necessarily the right, but those opposing, you know, mandates and things like that.
And I go and look at the CDC and the FDA website.
Do I blindly trust everything they say?
No.
But I would be willing to say the house edge, you know, gives them the benefit of the doubt to a certain degree.
Of course, I would always go to a doctor I know and trust.
But the FDA talks about adverse events.
The FDA talks about long-term studies.
This information isn't hidden.
When you look at the Pfizer insert, it straight up says there's not enough information to inform on risk of pregnancy.
The FDA says long-term studies are just beginning.
If those are reasons to give you pause, and you go talk to your doctor, and they can't give you any more clarifying information, I mean, the FDA outright told you, this is the issue I have.
The FDA outright tells you, We've got stories from people, they're emailing us, where they have a history of anaphylaxis from vaccines and Guillain-Barre syndrome, and they're still being mandated to get the vaccine, which they physically cannot get.
Their doctors tell them no.
That's why blanket mandates are wrong.
The other day on the Tim Cassero Podcast, Ian was saying that there's benevolent tyranny.
And he says, imagine there's a wildfire.
And, you know, a hundred people are running from it and they come to a river.
And one man who's the leader says, everyone, we're crossing the river.
One man says, no, I won't do it, but the fire is coming.
So the benevolent tyrant says, no, I'm forcing you and forces everyone across the river.
That was his analogy.
I said, there is no benevolent tyrant.
If the person says I'm not crossing the river, I would not force him to do it.
But wait a minute.
That means the wildfire could take his life.
Well, here's what I said.
What happens if that one person dissenting happens to be the right person?
What if that river is full of alligators or piranhas and the benevolent tyrant forces them into the water and they all die?
You see, that's the issue.
You have to respect an individual's choice to assume their own risks.
That being said, I was then asked by Jeremy Kaufman, you know, what if someone's drunk and they're going to drive their car, you stop them?
I'm like, being drunk is not the same as challenging someone's decision.
Being drunk is clearly inhibition, in which case they're not in the right state of mind to make decisions for themselves.
So there's an argument there.
I said, if someone is on the ground and they're injured and bleeding out, and they say, don't touch me, sorry, we're going to render aid, because some things are obvious and definitive.
But when it comes to complex political decisions, like mandating a vaccine, these are much too complicated for someone to just see.
If it's simple, a person is drunk and shouldn't drive, I can see they're drunk.
Okay.
There's some nuance there.
What if they're not really drunk?
What if you're wrong?
Absolutely.
And you can assume liability or responsibility for being wrong.
That's different from being a tyrant.
If someone is severely injured and says, don't touch me, but you know you're going to save them because very clearly they're bleeding out or asphyxiating or choking or whatever, you are acting in good faith under a very simple observation.
But when it comes to a complex issue, There's a fire, there's water before you, and someone says, listen to me, don't go in the water.
All of a sudden now you're dealing with severe unknowns.
And you're saying, I think I'm right to lead 99 people.
That's very, very different.
But it's all about scale.
If it was two people, if it was a hundred people, that's why I typically err on the side of liberty.
Because I'll tell you this man, if you've ever been in a leadership position, there's nothing more painful than leading your people into harm's way.
And then having that guilt of like, I made the wrong call and people got hurt.
That's why people have to choose to follow you.
You can't force them to do it.
Unless you're evil and you say, I don't care.
I believe it was Otto von Bismarck who said, it is better that ten innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape.
I reject that outright.
Anyway, I don't know where I'm going with this one.
This was fun.
Hey, it's Friday.
How about that?
Thanks for hanging out, everybody.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
I'm on this channel and I'll see all that.
Why?
Gun laws.
Now it's kind of sad because I think this is going to be short-lived.
I don't think in the long run they would have had to have moved because it seems young people are actually in favor of guns.
And you can thank certain leftists like Vosch, for instance.
You might not like his politics, you may disagree with him on principles and morals, but the dude is pro-gun and posts pictures of his guns and he's a socialist.
Young people who watch socialist channels like that are going to be exposed to a pro-gun message.
Populists on the left and the right, pro-gun.
Establishment shills, anti-gun.
And that includes Republicans.
Republicans who might actually pretend to support gun rights or the NRA, but in actuality will absolutely compromise on reasonable gun control.
There should be no gun control in this country.
All of the gun control should be repealed.
We should have guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms of any kind.
You know why?
Because the Constitution says so.
And you know, they try and play a game saying, well, we interpret the will of the founders.
Shut up.
Okay, you want to talk about what it means to have free speech?
There's some nuance there.
Free speech is the right to express your opinion, not to instruct violence.
That argument I understand, but still I think is a potential slippery slope.
But okay, okay, I understand that.
The right to keep and bears to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Well, that one's cut and dry.
Well, what's an arm?
No, no, no, no.
We're talking about anything.
People used to have privateers.
They had their own cannons.
They actually had what was that?
What was that?
A full auto gun call?
I can't remember.
There has been volley guns, I think they're called volley guns, going back to like the 1300s, where you have a barrel with like 12, it's one mechanism with 12 barrels, and they're all ready to go, and you can light one fuse, and then they all go off.
Now some people say, Tim, that's not full-auto.
I think it's effectively full-auto.
Sure, maybe people want to make those distinctions.
But over time, we have lost our right to keep and bear arms, and it's only getting worse.
And these leftists, who I believe are actually in the minority on gun rights, they claim to be in the majority, but it's all in how you phrase the questions.
They want to take away your guns.
They will lie and say they don't want to take away your guns.
They'll lie and say they've never taken away your guns.
And quite literally, I tell you right here, there's like 10 guns I own that are banned in a bunch of different states.
And some of them aren't even... The left would have you believe it's like a full-auto machine gun or something.
No, I'm talking about like, you know, um...
A short-barreled rifle, for instance.
I shouldn't say short-barreled rifle.
Those are NFA items.
Those are banned across the board.
I don't own any.
But there could be, like, a pistol with a brace, and they're like, that's banned.
Or there are certain other firearms, which are rifles, but maybe fire a smaller caliber and have a certain structure where they deem that to be an illegal assault weapon, which makes no sense.
Let me just, you know, for the people who don't understand guns, I'm not gonna pretend to be the biggest gun expert, but I will tell you this.
In any circumstance, I've got, I have an other firearm, it's called.
It's not a rifle, it's not a pistol, but it's basically a rifle.
And it's 9mm.
And with it, I am extremely accurate.
There is less recoil, it is all around safer.
Yet, it's an illegal assault weapon in a bunch of blue states.
I mean, you can have a handgun.
Okay, well, that I understand.
However, I suck with a handgun.
I am not proficient with these.
I struggle to hit the targets.
I am terrible.
Rifle?
Long gun?
Easy.
Yet, some are banned, some are not.
And it makes no sense.
Let's read the news, and then I'm gonna show you the good news.
Millennials are buying guns.
This authoritarian sentiment ain't gonna fly.
From WWLP Smith & Wesson Headquarters leaving Springfield moving to Tennessee.
Firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson announced Thursday they will be moving their headquarters and a large amount of their operations to Merrillville, Tennessee in 2023.
Quote.
This has been an extremely difficult and emotional decision for us, but after an exhaustive and thorough analysis for the continued health and strength of our iconic company, we feel that we have been left with no other alternative, said Mark Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Smith & Wesson.
I wonder if he is a descendant or just a guy named Smith.
Smith said recent proposed legislation in Massachusetts would prevent the company from manufacturing certain firearms in the Commonwealth, which is more than 60% of their revenue.
Quote, These bills would prevent Smith and Wesson from manufacturing firearms that are
legal in almost every state in America and that are safely used by tens of millions of
law abiding citizens every day exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights,
protecting themselves and their families and enjoying the shooting sports.
While we are hopeful that this arbitrary and damaging legislation will be defeated in the
session.
These products made up over 60% of our revenue last year, and the unfortunate likelihood that such restrictions would be raised again led to a review of the best path forward for Smith & Wesson, said Smith.
The Springfield location will remain operational, but will be reconfigured.
Several manufacturing operations will remain in Springfield, including forging, machining, metal finishing, and assembling revolvers.
Smith & Wesson will still have more than 1,000 employees in the state.
The company expects roughly 750 jobs will be relocated from Springfield, Connecticut and Missouri to Merrillville, Tennessee.
The company says they will also close facilities in Connecticut and Missouri when they make the move in 2023.
Smith & Wesson has been based in Springfield since 1852.
That's sad.
It's really, really sad to hear.
Our institutions are crumbling.
Our traditions are being erased.
And sometimes it makes sense.
You know, not every tradition should be upheld just because it's the way things are done.
But this is a company that produces a technology.
Weapons technology.
And they advance that technology.
And there are Luddites and paranoid, delusional individuals who would take away your rights.
The problem I see with firearms is not the firearms themselves.
Everybody's got a car.
The left says, yeah, well, you need a license and registration and insurance to drive a car.
And I'm like, you don't have a constitutional right to have the car.
You want to argue that you shouldn't have a constitutional right to have a gun?
That's fine.
Just call a convention of states or get your constitutional amendment passed.
If the Constitution said the right to keep and bear vehicles and drive them was, you know, shall not be infringed, I'd say, You can't force people to do anything because it is enshrined in the Constitution as a guaranteed right.
That being said, transportation, I do believe, is... it's not a right.
Freedom of movement is.
But the right to defend yourself effectively is.
Now, there are certain questions about what that means.
Driving is a privilege.
For a lot of people, it's a necessity in this modern day and age.
A weapon, in order to defend yourself, you will need modern technology to defend yourself.
In order to defend yourself effectively, you need to keep and bear weapons of technological modernity, I suppose.
Meaning, If somebody else can easily access these weapons, how do you defend yourself against them unless you have equal or comparable weapons?
In which case, I certainly see this as the right to self-defense.
Driving a vehicle?
Well, you can get a bike.
You know, they're different.
They are absolutely different.
So I think there should be no restrictions on gun ownership.
I think people should be getting guns at young ages, but I think there should be training.
We used to do it.
We used to have high school shooting club.
And then they decided, you don't deserve the right to defend yourself.
Well look, you want to live in New York or Massachusetts and not have a right to defend yourself?
And when someone breaks into your home, they sue you because they broke their hand on the glass as they broke in?
Fine.
Live in that place.
What a stupid way to live.
Mayor Sarno released a statement.
President and CEO Mark Smith had reached out to me to inform of Smith & Wesson's decision to relocate 550 Springfield-based jobs to their Tennessee manufacturing facility.
This is devastating news to the 550 employees and their families who will be losing their jobs.
My number one priority will be to assist these employees and their families in any way we possibly can.
I'll be working with my staff and coordinating with state officials to discuss ways in which we can offer workforce placement assistance and retraining aspects to assist every one of these employees and their families.
In addition, we will continue to work with Smith & Wesson to retain the 1,000 remaining jobs here in Springfield.
In my discussion with President and CEO Mark Smith, he has assured me that their goal is to keep these remaining 1,000 jobs here in Springfield.
I will continue to work with them in any way possible to attain that goal.
You know what?
Fine.
Good.
Let their economy take a hit.
If you want to live in these states... You know, I'll just say this.
If you live in a state that bans guns, that is overwhelmingly crackpot authoritarian, and you work in a gun factory, this should not surprise you.
I'm sorry.
I certainly empathize with those that are losing their jobs.
But let me just state, you need to have personal responsibility to have thought about what was happening in your state.
And the same is true for everyone else.
If you live in a blue state and you work in the gun industry, you are in the wrong business, my friends.
I get it.
You want to provide people the right to defend themselves.
You want to provide that service, and I can respect that.
But if you think you will leave this unscathed, you are incorrect.
You're a gun shop in New Jersey?
Don't be surprised when one day, you no longer have a job.
Overnight.
Legislation passes.
And all of a sudden, half your inventory is illegal, and you can't sell it.
It's a ridiculous industry to be in, in a blue state.
Go to a red state.
Think about it this way.
They want to ban semi-automatic weapons.
The Democrats have proposed banning semi-auto because they don't know what they're talking about.
Okay, that's basically every single gun you have.
So you're a gun shop.
You invest $20,000 in your inventory.
You want to sell it to make a profit so that you can support the people who work there and can provide this service to your community.
And then one day, there's a bang, bang, bang.
They have passed the new law.
It is unlawful to keep, possess, or transfer or sell semi-automatic weapons.
All of a sudden, your store is full of stuff you can't sell.
Now, this kind of thing can happen at supermarkets.
You could be carrying, you know, some kind of salami, and it gets recalled, and all of a sudden you're like, ugh, what do we do?
And then you'll have to, you know, reconcile that somehow.
Maybe get a refund from the company that's doing the recall.
Maybe it's the FDA.
Maybe you're out of luck.
It happens.
I mean, that's regulation, okay?
But to have the government, to be in a blue state, and to know they will ban everything you sell given the opportunity, There's only so much I can say to these employees who are working at a company where they're in a state where they knew, or they should have known, this is what's going to happen.
Senator Eric Lester said, Regardless of one's personal views on gun control, this move is bad news for the hundreds of families who will lose stable, well-paying jobs.
Looking forward, I've already begun the conversation with relevant public and private sector leaders about suitable reuse of space and ways to assist the 550 impacted employees through training, job placement, etc.
We understand, we understand.
Now, the sad thing is, this may actually be arbitrary and temporary.
I'm gonna bet on guns.
I'll tell you why.
Take a look at these articles.
From NPR.
2018.
Millennials are no more liberal on gun control than elders.
Polls show.
How about this one from Politico Magazine.
Are millennials moving right on guns?
This one's from 2017.
And then we have this from the National Interest, from nationalinterest.org.
The trend has flipped.
Millennials are actually buying guns.
Now hold on there a minute.
You may have seen a bunch of articles saying millennials are in favor of gun control.
You may have seen people like David Hogg, who's like, we're the future, man.
We're going to take away everyone's rights because that's what people want.
They want to live under a boot and they all high-five each other.
Woo-hoo!
No, it's not true.
At least I can say in my opinion.
When you ask someone questions that are loaded, you might get the answer you're looking for.
Do you think there should be some reasonable restrictions to prevent unwell people and murderers from getting guns and hurting people?
And people are going to be like, well, yeah, of course.
But what does that mean?
Reasonable restrictions?
Does it mean, like, you do a mental health check or a background check?
Yeah, those exist.
Okay.
And you said yes.
Then the poll comes out and says, 78% of Millennials favor some form of gun control.
Well, yeah.
We already have the NICS background check.
Some people think it's bad.
And I don't know if it's every state, but I know in West Virginia, if you have a concealed carry permit, you're able to just walk in and buy the gun because that concealed carry is a background check.
But we have background checks.
Sometimes they can take five days.
I know a ton of people have tried to buy a gun.
They put you on a waiting list.
You get delayed.
Those things are already in place.
That's why you'll see people saying they're in favor of this stuff.
I went to the March for Our Lives in D.C.
a few years ago.
And I would say 9 out of 10 people I talked to had no idea what was going on.
They had signs saying, assault rifles should be banned.
And I'm like, assault rifles are already heavily restricted and hard to buy.
Also, they're extremely expensive and can't be manufactured.
And people would be like, wait, what?
I'm like, yeah, you can't actually buy a new one.
I mean, you can buy used ones, because they ban the production.
I had people be like, oh, I didn't know.
Because the Democrats say, assault weapon.
Yeah.
A Ruger 10-22 with a scary-looking pistol grip.
That's an assault weapon, apparently.
Most people don't understand this.
I think younger people are starting to pay attention.
From national interest.
Young people have been quite vocal about gun control in recent years, driven by a number of high-profile mass shootings in schools.
A 2018 NBC news story even suggested that younger Americans weren't all that into guns, except those seen in first-person games.
However, those games, and a wave of podcasts, YouTube channels, and social media related to guns in games, may have been a gateway for the younger crowd.
And there has been a slow increase in gun sales to millennials.
Then the pandemic came last year.
And it was a, it was, and this is from, mind you, this is from this year.
It was younger Americans, along with minorities and women, that began to truly express their Second Amendment rights like never before.
Many were first-time buyers, but that is about all they had in common.
These new gun owners came from all political spectrums.
The old notion that most gun owners were old white guys simply isn't true.
Just as America continues to evolve politically, with unions increasingly supporting and endorsing conservative causes, many gun owners now identify as independent, democrat, and even liberals.
Yes.
My friends, Tim Pool, the independent politically independent mixed race high school dropout, is a gun owner and staunch proponent of the Second Amendment.
And boy, when I say I have guns, let me just say I got a lot of guns.
I got a lot.
Because I'm allowed to.
And because I like them.
And because I want to have them.
And because the Constitution says, F you, I won't do what you tell me.
So I'm allowed to have it.
I take them very seriously.
They're well protected.
They're locked up in safes, separated from ammo.
I take safety and security extremely seriously.
And I will not let anyone go anywhere near them unless they can tell me the rules, they know about gun safety, and then once I've confirmed this, you take the weapon, you clear it, you lock the hammer back or whatever, inspect it, let them have it.
When it comes to going to the range or anything like that, I don't play around.
I've had air rifles, you know, air compression rifles, break action, and people play stupid games.
I'll tell you this.
I have a flintlock pistol that was, uh, that Luke Rydkowski of WeAreChange got me for my birthday.
Thank you, Luke.
It's a wonderful gift.
It's amazing.
It's got no flint in it.
It's never been fired and probably never will be.
I mean, maybe we'll go to a range at some point.
This is a really good I think this is really good to have because you can then see if someone is capable of handling a weapon By giving them something they would not be capable of firing because well, there's like I said, there's no flint.
There's no powder There's no there's no ball.
There's no wadding there's nothing they can put in it and if they tried to They if they don't know how to handle up and I really don't doubt they'd be able to handle a flintlock pistol But the one thing I tell them always Do you know the rules?
They go, yes.
Okay, so don't point at anybody.
Assume it is loaded.
Right, right, right.
Finger off the trigger.
All of these things.
And what do most people do when I take it?
And we're on the top floor.
So top floor, you point it up.
Bottom floor, you point it down.
And I hand it to them.
They immediately just woom and spike everybody.
And I'm like, you see, that is why You want to make sure you don't hand people loaded weapons.
You take safety seriously.
There's a video out of a shooting range where it's like this guy is joking around and he points the weapon at his friend and the instructor runs up, grabs him, pins him down, takes the gun, you know, clears it, takes the magazine out, clears it, puts it down, hammer back, and then grabs both guys and kicks them out.
Because it's not a game.
And people They'll say, oh yeah, I'll be fine.
And it's just like, dude, if I give you a flintlock pistol and tell you do not point it at anybody, and you do, first thing, I am really, really impressed with people, I gotta be honest.
So we were doing flooring, we were working on the new studio, and there's a sticker that says, do not step.
And I look down and say, don't step on that, and they go, okay, and then they step on it.
And I'm like, I just don't understand.
I'll tell you what.
I bring that up to say, even though I take it seriously, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I am not saying this to be like, people are dumb and can't be trusted.
No, I'm saying, recognize that people are dumb and sometimes you can't trust them, but that doesn't change the fact they have rights.
But anyway, I should read some of this.
Check this out.
Quote, "...today's gun owner looks a lot less like me and a whole lot more like America," the NSSF's Public Affairs Director Mark Oliva, who is white, told NPR in April.
First-time gun buyers largely flock to semi-automatic handguns, which outpace second-most purchased firearm shotguns by a two-to-one margin.
I like shotguns, but I'm not a big fan.
You know what?
I will say this.
I got a 410 brake action.
Ridiculously simple.
Like it's basically just a metal tube.
And we got 410 slugs.
It is so much fun shooting targets with the 410 with slugs.
You shoot it, and then you pop it open, and it ejects the shell.
People have a good time with it.
Extremely low recoil.
Extremely easy to learn with.
Still want to take it extremely seriously.
But we always try, you know, when we're going to the range, and I'm not an instructor, but when we've had people who are, I'm always like, look, A 12-gauge?
I don't think we're going to hand the 12-gauge off to someone who's never fired a weapon before, because you better be ready for that one.
Especially buckshot or something like that.
It's fun, it is.
But this is the thing.
We are seeing young people, outright, embracing weapons.
We are seeing progressives, socialists on the left, embracing weapons.
Pushing back on the establishment.
And you know what that says?
People like David Hogg.
Some of the worst of the worst people, really.
Because he has no cause.
He has no cause.
It's a losing issue, and it's always been.
There was a Union Democrat yelling at Biden, saying, you're going to take away my guns?
Union Democrat.
Just because people in New York don't want guns doesn't mean people in West Virginia or even suburban Philadelphia should have theirs taken away.
No, people like guns.
Does that mean there will be problems?
Yes.
Does that mean there will be accidents?
Uh-huh.
Does that mean that there's a risk?
Yes, there is.
Freedom comes with risks.
I will not give all of the leverage to the state or to criminals.
Regular people deserve a right to keep and bear arms.
Seeing Smith & Wesson leave is sad.
I will tell you that right now.
They're keeping some presence there, but their headquarters are moving.
It's sad.
It really is.
Times change.
Not every tradition is a good tradition.
But what's sad is that I think we're winning on this front.
And a lot of people say Tim's pessimistic.
Look, if the Republic has fallen and the states break apart, all the federal laws have no longer applied to you.
So you can keep and bear arms, you can buy your tank, you can do whatever you want in your state.
I mean, that sounds like good things, actually.
I mean, think about it.
If you live in Tennessee, you want to live by Tennessee's rules.
If you live in New York, you want to live by New York's rules.
So the federal government breaking apart or losing power over that state, how is that bad for anybody who lives in those states that likes what they do?
I think it's bad in the long run with China.
But at the very least, there is some light at the end of that tunnel.
As much as I would prefer it not to happen, A lot of people tell me, like, peaceful divorce, and I'm like, I think we're headed towards severe conflict.
And then you get these clickbait garbage channels that are like, Tim wants a civil war!
And I'm like, how many times do I have to say that would be a bad thing for all of us?
Maybe a peaceful divorce?
But I still think it leaves China, you know, to take over, which is bad.
But if we're headed towards violence, maybe peaceful divorce is the best.
Not that I want it.
In fact, absolutely not.
That'd be terrible.
In the end, one of the most important things you can do is go to a range, learn all the rules, take some courses, get a good instructor, and know how guns work.
Period.
Why?
Sometimes wild animals attack.
I mean, that's it.
Sometimes criminals attack.
I'm not even so worried about people.
I live in the middle of nowhere.
There are bear sightings out here.
Now, how do you deal with bears?
A lot of people comment, say, Tim, don't do this, don't do that.
Look, we have a lot of predators, we have foxes, we have chickens to protect, and I don't want to harm anything, okay?
But if you are facing down something that could potentially be rabid, for instance, and you're in your yard, what do you do?
Well, You might want to have some kind of weapon to protect yourself, even if it's a stick, right?
But if there's a wild animal, man, you do not want to get bit by a wild animal or a bat or whatever.
You'll need to protect yourself.
And out in West Virginia, if you've got a wild animal coming at you, I hope you've got some way to protect yourself because if you get bit, you're going to be in the hospital with those rabies shots.
Hopefully that's all you get.
And if it's a bear, I'll tell you this.
I'm not gonna go ahead and pretend that, you know, first of all, never engage, you know, unless... I'm not gonna give you the rules on bears, okay?
I think black bears you fight, whatever.
If you're in your house and you see a bear, just keep the door closed, stay safe.
But if you're outside...
And a bear is coming.
You're probably gonna hope you have a gun, even if it's something that's not particularly effective against a bear, because at the very least, you can do something other than nothing.
The point is, it's not always about war or conflict or burglaries or sports.
Sometimes it's just defense, and sometimes it's animals.
