S5214 - Famed Leftist Calls For Unvaccinated To Be Isolated And Deprived Of Food, Civil War Talks Escalates
Famed Leftist Calls For Unvaccinated To Be Isolated And Deprived Of Food, Civil War Talks Escalates. Democrats and leftists chime in to agree with the forced isolation of the unvaccinated from society.
But these Establishment actors don't realize that farmers and Truckers overwhelmingly support Trump and the result would likely backfire and the democrat run cities would be the ones without food.
While Republican states tend to be better they are not perfect and if people don't stand firm vaccine mandates and other despotic measures will be enacted
#Democrats
#VAccineMandate
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A famous leftist, Noam Chomsky, has called for the isolation of people unwilling to get vaccinated, saying that, well, if they want food, that's their problem.
And a man in a car intentionally rammed vaccine-mandate protesters.
Suffice it to say, this is heading in a very dangerous direction.
Maybe towards peaceful divorce, or maybe something worse.
In our next story, new information about Alec Baldwin shows the action's onset of rust, in which he's shot and killed him and may actually be criminal.
And in our last story, hashtag arrest Fauci is trending after horrifying images of dogs being experimented on emerged.
Turns out Fauci provided funding for the research.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Tell your friends about it.
Now, let's get into that first story.
We recently had an event nearby where we work for Timcast IRL.
Tons of people showed up.
It was quite awesome.
At the event, I was informed by some locals here that it hasn't been the same since the vaccine mandates because living out here in the Western Maryland in the tri-state, many people like to go to Washington DC is the big city to see events and shows, but you can't anymore because of vaccine mandates.
Now, if you're vaccinated and you want to present your papers, by all means, you can.
Many people are wondering what this means moving forward.
It seems that vaccine mandates are a phenomenon of big cities and blue states, not so much the red ones, because we had an event, we played music, we had comedy, we had a bunch of speakers.
No vaccine mandates, no mask mandates, just West Virginia.
And it wasn't the biggest venue in the world, but it was decently packed, and we had a lot of people show up, all around quite fun.
Well, we ask ourselves what the logical conclusion is.
And honestly, we don't know, because it's entirely dependent upon who wins the culture war, which is why the culture war is so important.
As you can see, I have a story from New York.
NYC workers march across Brooklyn Bridge in protest of COVID vaccine mandate.
We can see that even in big blue cities, I mean, the Democrats stronghold of New York City, people are saying no to this.
But You saw the thumbnail, you saw the title, and you're asking yourself, what is this really about?
It's about Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky being one of the most prominent leftists who argued in September that the right response to vaccine mandates is to insist that those who are unvaccinated be isolated from society.
Well, Noam Chomsky has doubled, tripled, quadrupled down, this time saying not only should those who are unvaccinated be isolated from society, But when asked, well, how do we get them food?
He says, well, actually, that's their problem.
You see where this goes?
Noam Chomsky, wow.
You know, he was asked a couple years ago about Antifa violence.
Should Antifa be engaging in street battles?
And he said, in the arena of violence, the most brutal guy wins.
And that's not us.
I respected that statement.
I also remember Noam Chomsky way back in the day defending free speech even for those who have bad speech.
Thought it was pretty great of him to be consistent in that regard.
But now, what he is effectively advocating for here, telling all of these leftists, and many of them agree, is that our society should take those who are not vaccinated and effectively imprison them until a such time they decide that they will comply with forced medication.
Of course, many on the left are saying vaccine mandates have been around forever!
Which is not true.
There have been some vaccine mandates, but the way I describe it on Twitter is, I don't recall having to present my medical forms at a bar before.
Of course, the argument then gets changed.
The goalposts move from, right now, we are mandating vaccines for, you know, the MMR, measles, mumps, and rubella, as well as many other vaccines for kids in schools.
Yeah, that I understand.
I've actually talked about agreeing with What I didn't agree with was having to show papers to get into a restaurant being denied public accommodation.
Not to mention all the creepy exceptions.
But of course the goalposts have to move because this is about culture war tribalism.
Well, you may have already figured this one out, but Noam Chomsky, who says food, that's actually their problem, Doesn't seem to understand that farmers and truckers are overwhelmingly Trump supporters.
And if any group of individuals are going to be defying vaccine mandates, it's going to be Trump supporters, which is also why the NYPD, check this one out, NYPD officer union sues city over vaccine mandate.
So by all means, Mr. Noam Chomsky, take away people's food and isolate them.
And then ask yourself the real question, How do they get food to you?
Because if you isolate them...
What you're basically saying is you're going to keep out the truckers, keep out the farmers, and then you won't be eating.
The bigger question here, I suppose, is national divorce.
In Western Maryland, where I currently am, a letter was submitted to West Virginia.
They want to secede from this blue state and join the red state of West Virginia.
My friends, saying things are getting spicy is just an understatement.
The House voted to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt.
Noam Chomsky says, lock him up in Take away their food!
Not so bluntly, but basically.
Well, let me show you what he has to say.
Before we get into everything, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments on the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as all of our other shows up and coming.
We have a new Cast Castle vlog behind the scenes at that event I was just talking about, gonna be a lot of fun.
And you'll be supporting our journalists.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and take this video, share it wherever you can, Send it to your friends.
Post it on Facebook.
Don't be annoying about it, I guess.
But no, just generally share it.
And maybe it will matter to some people.
Maybe you'll have an impact.
Maybe they'll hear what Noam Chomsky is saying, a prominent leftist, and say, well, I mean, I don't agree with that.
Hopefully, that's what they say.
Because the reality is, there are many people tweeting out that Noam Chomsky is right.
And that we should effectively imprison people and deprive them of food.
He goes on to say, Well, if they become destitute, treat it like you were a prison.
There you go.
If you were wondering where we would end up, let me start by simply playing for you this clip and showing you a news story.
A news story about people intentionally trying to hurt those who oppose authoritarianism.
And I've seen some really interesting tweets about mandates in prisons, and I think a truer statement has never been said.
I'm exaggerating, obviously, but someone tweeted, almost every single person would have been a Nazi.
And that's true.
Almost every single person.
You think you're a good person, man, you really don't realize how much they got swept into marching behind that banner.
And when you hear stories and things like this, It is true.
Many people.
The overwhelming majority would have been.
I want to play for you this clip from Primo Radical.
We'll start there.
unidentified
When you talk about folks having the freedom to separate if they don't want to abide by these vaccine mandates, what would that look like on a practical level?
Does that mean That folks need to stay home and have groceries delivered to them.
Does it mean separated communities of folks who are unvaccinated?
Meaning, we're kicking you out, denying you access to public accommodation, because it's your freedom to do so.
Technically, that's true.
You have the freedom to leave and say, I will not abide by these things.
But then going on to say that we will treat you like you're in prison is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
unidentified
Same way as with people who say that I don't I don't want to accept traffic rules.
I suppose there were people who said, it's an attack on my liberty to make me stop at a red light.
It's government overreach.
We don't want the state to have that power over my private life.
Well, such people have to be They should have the decency to remove themselves from the community.
If they refuse to do that, then measures have to be taken to safeguard the community from them.
Then comes the practical question that you ask, how can we get food to them?
Well, that's actually their problem.
Of course, if they really become destitute, then yes, you have to move in with some measure to secure their survival, just as you do with people in jail, for example.
It's kind of hard to understand the feeble old crackpot, who I used to be a fan of, to a certain degree.
Oh, Chomsky.
What he said was that measures must be taken to protect the community.
What he's really... It's a euphemism, essentially, for rounding up people and isolating them.
That's why he said treat them as if they were in jail.
Ensure their survival, because you have to.
What Mr. Chomsky doesn't realize, unfortunately, is that farmers support Trump.
Now this is the first and most obvious thing I thought of when he said, how do we get food to them?
How do we get food to them?
Buddy, I don't think you understand how this world works.
The real question is, how do they get food to you?
That's what I've been talking about this whole time.
A trucker from Texas picking up a load.
They say, drop it off in New York.
And he says, I can't.
They have vaccine mandates.
Texas doesn't.
What about California?
Maybe California can drive to New York.
And there you go.
You get yourself the food.
Because the red states aren't going to block the vaccinated.
It's only the other way around.
But it'll be interesting then when farmers at 85% supporting of Trump say no to this, even if they are vaccinated and refuse to abide.
More importantly, when vaccine mandates as a general rule of policy obstruct people and slow down the process and jam it up because of increased testing and bureaucracy.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America 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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
And so they'll be able to ship it to certain places, but certainly this means places like New York that restrict people from coming in and getting access to services if they're not vaccinated.
Of course, they'll be hurt by this.
But the bigger question, I suppose, is truckers.
I mean, they're the ones who are going to deliver it.
Even if you are from California, will truckers be abiding by the vaccine mandate?
I'm going to go ahead and say the answer is probably no.
This is from CCJDigital.com.
Trucking's political dollars back Trump by a 10 to 1 margin.
This is from last October.
Maybe it's different, but they say 10 to 1.
It's comparable to to farmers.
I think it's fair to say that truckers and farmers overwhelmingly not going to be supporting Joe Biden and Democrats and vaccine mandates.
Some will.
So, ultimately, I'll say this to you, Chomsky, and the leftists who support him, because not every leftist does.
Some of them are actively speaking out against it, saying it's authoritarian, it's despotic.
When you decide to isolate from the rest of society, then we will have to figure out how to get food to you, not the other way around.
And I'm talking not about the un-vaxxed.
I'm talking about those who are vaccinated or un-vaxxed who are simply saying, your crackpot rules do not apply.
They are unconstitutional.
Of course, the left says, vaccine mandates have been around for a long time.
Ooh, I really would love to get into all of that, too, and break down that lie.
Is it true there have been vaccine mandates before?
Yes.
Have the rules been changed?
Yes.
Did they lead to unspeakable horrors?
Yes.
And then people start to say, you know, I really don't think that the ruling from 1904 should apply to the civil rights we enjoy today.
But let me show you how far this goes.
Because what I really want to talk to you about is the National Divorce Phenomenon.
What it means for where I live.
What it means for where you might live.
You think it's just Noam Chomsky saying, we should, they should have the decency to isolate themselves, and if they don't, we'll take measures.
Chomsky is acting under the impression that he, his tribe, his side, controls all of society.
He's wrong.
But if you think his insane authoritarian behavior is limited to him, you would be incorrect.
From KTLA, driver intentionally rams vaccine mandate protesters in Palmdale Sheriff's Department.
This story just from yesterday evening.
A 64-year-old man was arrested Saturday after he drove his Jeep Wrangler into a crowd of people protesting vaccine mandates in Palmdale, injuring one woman, LA County Sheriff's Department officials said.
A witness stated a man disagreed with the protest, entered his vehicle and intentionally drove toward the protesters.
Deputy Tina Schrader said in a statement Sunday.
The suspect then drove away westbound and out of view.
William Aslakson was arrested about 90 minutes after the incident, which occurred about 3.25 p.m.
at the intersection of 10th Street West and Rancho Vista Boulevard.
He was booked into the Sheriff's Department Palmdale Station on suspicion of felony assault and was being held there Sunday in lieu of $50,000 bail.
Inmate records show he is scheduled to appear Tuesday in Antelope Valley Municipal Court in Lancaster.
Now, or is it Lancaster?
I don't know.
If you're in PA, it's Lancaster.
I don't know if he actually got in the car and just like full speed rammed people.
I really don't think that's the case.
I've seen the videos of the Antifa people in the street and the car is just like slowly moving through them and they're like, he's hitting us and they're screaming.
If I had to make a guess, he intentionally drove towards them and then probably just honked and wailed and tried to move them out of the way.
It could just be that he was upset the road was being blocked, like any other protest.
But there are certainly the possibilities that this is a guy, much like Chomsky, who is just foaming at the mouth insane, seeking to ram through a crowd of people.
Let's talk about vaccine mandates.
This is from History.com.
When the Supreme Court ruled a vaccine could be mandatory, I was listening to Offspring earlier.
When I was a kid, they were like my favorite band.
And they were very anti-establishment.
Today, they are the embodiment of it.
Not so much like Rage on behalf of the Machine, formerly Rage Against the Machine, but the Offspring kicked out their drummer.
They fired him because he has Guillain-Barre syndrome and cannot get vaccinated.
Apparently they don't care.
Way to stick it to the man, Offspring!
Used to be a big fan.
Still like some of the older music, but man, not so much.
I mean, to be completely honest, Americana, like, I like Smash, Ixnay, and Americana.
Those are the albums by them, everything else.
But anyway, back to the news.
Let me read to you about vaccine mandates, and then I really do want to talk about national divorce, because we got some big news.
History.com says, In 1901, a deadly smallpox epidemic tore through the Northeast, prompting the Boston and Cambridge Boards of Health to order the vaccination of all residents.
But some refused to get the shot, claiming the vaccine order violated their personal liberties under the Constitution.
One of those holdouts was a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobsen, took his anti-vaccine crusade, excuse me, anti-mandate crusade, history, please correct, all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The nation's top justices issued a landmark 1905 ruling that legitimized the authority of states to reasonably infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to those who refused vaccination.
Here is the Certificate of Protection from Smallpox, your old vax card from 1902.
They say, a Certificate of Protection from Smallpox filled out by the U.S.
Marine Hospital Service for John Donaldson, traveling aboard S.S.
Chalmette to New Orleans, Havana, Cuba, July 18, 1902.
The question is, how far did the mandates go?
Was it mostly for conscription?
Let's go through a few of the things left says.
George Washington mandated for EPMAP.
Stop right there.
You're talking about conscripted soldiers in the American Revolution being inoculated for smallpox.
Smallpox is devastating, pretty bad, and this was just for his soldiers.
This wasn't a, if you'd like to come into the pub, the government has mandated you show your papers.
Very different.
That may have been the case with smallpox, but let's read.
They say, in 1901, the city of Boston registered 1,596 cases of confirmed smallpox, highly contagious fever-inducing illness infamous for causing a severe rash in the face and arms that often left survivors scarred for life.
In Boston alone, 270 people died from smallpox during 1901 to 1903.
Jacobson served as a pastor at a Swedish Lutheran church in Cambridge, had been vaccinated against smallpox in Sweden when he was six years old, an experience that he later said caused him great and extreme suffering.
So when Dr. E. Edwin Spencer, chairman of the Cambridge Board of Health, knocked on the Jacobson's door, the pastor refused vaccination for himself and his son.
A few months later, Cambridge is in a full-fledged panic, with the city ordering the closure of schools, libraries, churches.
To stem the spread of the disease.
Police officers accompanied health officials like Spencer who went door-to-door vaccinating as many as 100 people a day.
But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn't a forced vaccination.
People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today.
On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint against Jacobson and other vaccine activists to collect the $5 fine.
He went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ultimately sided against him.
They rejected Jacobson's argument, but they do mention that Jacobson tried arguing the vaccine was ineffective.
The Supreme Court said they weren't going to hear it.
Sound familiar?
And ultimately, he argued that depriving any — let me read a little bit.
The highest court in Massachusetts rejected Jacobson's claim, siding instead with the authority of public health officials to determine the best methods for fighting the epidemic.
He was arguing that Compulsion to introduce disease into a healthy system is a violation of liberty.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court said, in these cases, it has to be reasonable.
A reasonable infringement makes sense, especially when there's a public health crisis.
Okay.
So they were fining people.
Is that the same as firing everybody?
No.
Is it the same as saying, you can't come into a restaurant and eat food unless you show us your papers?
No!
This is, the government is going to come collect a fine for you because the Supreme Court said that was reasonable.
The Supreme Court rule upon your ability to go out to buy food?
No.
It's funnier though.
It gets, I shouldn't, not, funny is the wrong word.
It gets really, really bad.
In a far darker chapter, the Jacobson decision provided judicial cover for a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of feeble-minded individuals in state mental institutions.
In the 1920s, eugenics enjoyed wide support in scientific and medical circles, and the Supreme Court justices were not immune.
They say, in the infamous 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court accepted the questionable facts presented in the lower court cases that a young Virginia woman named Carrie Bell hailed from a long line of mental defectives whose offspring were a burden on public welfare.
Quote, the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting
the fallopian tubes.
Three generations of imbeciles are enough, wrote Justice Oliver Wendell, Oliver Wendell
Holmes in a chilling opinion.
The Buck decision opened the floodgates, and by 1930, a total of 24 states had passed involuntary sterilization laws, and around 60,000 women were ultimately sterilized under these statutes.
Buck v. Bell is the most extreme and barbaric example of the Supreme Court justifying a law in the name of public health.
And that's where we can go.
But let's talk about the MMR in the schools.
Okay.
I'm in favor of that.
I think if there's a public schooling system, and they say to participate in this public institution, which is schools, we have these guidelines based on legislation passed and effectiveness.
Now, there are questions about how far you can go with mandating schools versus the rest of the public, but the thing is, public schools aren't the end-all be-all.
And I want to make sure I stress, I am not 100% behind this.
I just lean in favor of... Here's my thought, because it is nuanced.
If you don't want your kid going to a public school because they have to be vaccinated, homeschool them.
Find a way.
But if you want someone to take charge of your children, and they said, if your kid doesn't have this vaccine, I'm not gonna allow that.
I think that... I agree with that.
To a certain degree.
The challenge then becomes that poor and working class people who can't afford private schools or homeschooling are left with the, if my child is not undergoing this medical procedure, he can't go to this institution.
But, I'll put it this way.
If you are seeking to receive something from the state, and they have restriction on it, there are some limits.
Ultimately, I would say this.
It's like a 51 to 49 thing, as I stated in another video.
I'm not a big fan, but these are schools, and I am much more in favor of homeschooling and private schooling, and of people taking personal responsibility for their families.
I'm not a fan of the government taking your tax dollars to fund this program and then mandating kids get vaccinated.
I just want more people to be homeschooled.
So I'll put it this way.
For the time being, I'm kind of like, well look, we have a lot of vaccines, I'm pro-vaccine, they do work, there are side effects, long-standing trials over decades, and legislation passed to say, okay, public schools, okay, you need to be vaccinated.
However, I'm also for voucher systems, meaning that if tax dollars are being taken from people, a voucher should be given to the parents where they can choose to send that kid somewhere else.
The voucher system solves the problem.
If the public school wants a vaccine, so be it.
Now, if they want a mandate for any person, anywhere, I'm opposed to that.
Now, the Supreme Court did allow it in the 1905 case, but that was just a fine.
They were trying to seek the equivalent of $150 from this guy for not doing it, and smallpox was insane, scarring people and killing people.
You see the very big difference here?
This was not a case of them saying, if you want to go to the bar, you need to prove that you are vaccinated.
So, voucher system.
Give families vouchers to choose what schools they go to, and then if you want to run your private, your public schools, your schools with vaccine mandates, by all means, go ahead and do it, and the parents can then take their kids out and use that voucher to send them anywhere else.
Provide that competition.
So where do we go?
Noam Chomsky brings up a really good point.
There's no solution here.
He says isolation.
Maybe most people bend the knee, and then there's no qualms, but even people who are vaccinated, who have been on Tim Castor Oil, for instance, have argued that it's wrong, and would stand in opposition to this.
In which case, maybe national divorce is the only thing that could possibly occur.
Noam Chomsky went really far with it.
What about getting him food?
That's their problem.
You mean you're gonna cut people off from food and say your problem, undergo the medical procedure or else?
They didn't do that in 1905!
They said, well, you gotta pay a fine.
150 bucks equivalent today.
For a lot of people, that's a lot.
But that could theoretically be 10 hours of work.
Okay, fine.
I'll work for 10 hours and have to pay a fine.
Not a fan of that.
Very different from what we're seeing now.
You're fired.
You can't come into this state.
You can't drive a truck.
You can't work.
Lies from the left.
So what's the solution?
Well, national divorce.
Peaceful divorce.
Civil war.
Call it whatever you want.
It's remarkable that we're at this point.
Here we go.
Bye-bye Maryland, saith New York Times.
Lawmakers in three counties float a plan to secede from the state.
The proposal to join West Virginia seems destined to go nowhere, but it has tapped into deep-seated feelings of alienation in Western Maryland, a mountainous panhandle wedged against the Mason-Dixon line.
All right.
We work there.
We're new here.
We've been here for a year.
Got out of the New Jersey area, and boy was I excited to hear.
Now, I personally am a resident of West Virginia.
We just have the office in Maryland, for a variety of reasons.
But, um, we do have a new setup called Fredamistan, which is being built in West Virginia, because West Virginia is Best Virginia, and it's way better than Western Maryland.
But, That's only because Eastern Maryland, which is deep blue, with Democrats in DC and in Baltimore voting for these things, and the people in Western Maryland are just like, yo, we don't live that way.
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 For instance, there's a lot of hunting, technically, in Western Maryland, but they've got Baltimore laws over your gun rights in a rural area.
here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
For instance, there's a lot of hunting technically in western Maryland, but they've got Baltimore
laws over your gun rights in a rural area.
We had a bear attack.
Yeah, a bear tried breaking into the chicken coop.
Heaven forbid we need to use firearms to defend ourselves.
The laws in Maryland are absolutely insane.
In West Virginia, they're not.
Not only are there some laws, but they make sense.
Maryland's laws make literally no sense.
One of the things they mention in this article, these lawmakers say, it's mask mandates.
It's vaccine mandates.
And I gotta be honest, I'm not gonna go to Eastern Maryland.
We went there, we went and we went and checked out Travis Pastrana's place, you know, because we knew somebody who knew it, and, you know, we checked it out.
He's got a skate ramp, skate park, and big, you know, crazy woods and stuff.
In Western Maryland, It may as well be West Virginia.
And when I talk to locals out here, and we do all the time every day, they say this is West Virginia.
For all intents and purposes.
If you want to be in West Virginia, literally, it's one minute.
And you think I'm kidding, it's literally one minute.
Well, to be honest, it's a minute to Virginia, and then another 20 seconds to West Virginia, because, you know, that's how the tri-state out here works.
People are saying they want out.
Quote, we believe this arrangement may be mutually beneficial for both states and for our local constituencies.
You got money to be made out here, even if you disregard, even if you ignore and you oppress the people who live here.
West Virginia, on the other hand.
What do I gotta do?
Have I earned any kind of influence in this area?
I don't know.
If I did, let's figure out how to actually make something like that happen.
What do I gotta do?
Have I earned any kind of influence in this area?
I don't know.
If I did, let's figure out how to actually make something like that happen.
That'd be fantastic.
We can all here be part of West Virginia.
Cross the river or not, it's all good.
It will be interesting, though, because where we're at, which is basically the Harper's Ferry area, you have to go through Virginia in order to get to West Virginia.
So I guess you'd have to drive up to Shepherdstown and then cross from Maryland into West Virginia directly, which would be funny because, like, I guess it would just be West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia, West Virginia again.
Anyway, whatever.
It's besides the point.
I think it'd be great.
It's not national divorce.
It's internal realignment.
And I think it's a good half measure, for now.
In the CNN article, they mention greater Idaho.
Rural counties in liberal Oregon vote to join conservative Idaho.
And the greater Idaho state's actually something having to do with California as well.
But for the time being, you have parts of Washington and Oregon that are saying they want to join Idaho because their values are more aligned.
If these blue cities want to do blue city stuff, let them do it.
Which brings me back to what Noam Chomsky was saying.
When he says people should have the freedom to isolate, I say, okay, but I don't think you realize what that means.
Do people want to just live in big cities?
No.
You know how I know this?
Because where we live is an adventure tourism area.
West Virginia has a lot of it.
All these big city liberals coming out, going to their liberal bars to go ride their kayaks down the river, to go zip lining and rock climbing and, you know, what else are they doing?
High ropes courses, rafting.
Yeah, the people from the cities come out here for their fun and adventure because of course they like that.
Who doesn't?
Everybody does.
But what do the cities have to offer?
To be honest, they have big venues.
They've got those big venues, man.
But as we already know, right now, with the vaccine mandates, there are many people who are saying, not worth it.
So what'll happen?
Well, I think people will ultimately say, I wanna live in the free place, you know?
I don't wanna live in a city that's got me under a boot, where I can't leave my house.
I'll go there for events.
So what this means is even people who are vaccinated and don't care about vaccine mandates would probably still prefer not to live in a place where they're under a boot with curfews or otherwise.
Because they can get all that good freedom and then have access to the cities later on.
I think most people in the red areas are gonna be like, nah, don't know, don't care.
But in the end, if this can't happen, and I gotta be honest, I don't think it can, There's that old quote, I think it's from JFK, I could be wrong.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
I think it's a funny phrase, kind of a scary phrase.
But the reality is, if in this country, the ideology of Noam Chomsky persists, and the authoritarians say, we will seize your food from you, then there is an inevitability.
And it may just be peaceful.
But I will take this opportunity to shout out all of my good friends who said, I cannot speak up, Tim.
I'll lose my job.
And then how will I feed my kids?
Okay.
I'm going to ask you how you feed your kids after Noam Chomsky isolates you from society and then deprives you of your food and treats you like you're living in some kind of jail situation.
Do you think your children will enjoy that life?
The freedoms that you give up today are freedoms your children will never know existed.
I like to look back at how things used to be and I'm like, we had a lot of freedoms.
You know?
And we reasonably walk away from some in exchange for some safety.
Now, there's a big question.
Smallpox.
Scary.
Would we give up our freedom for safety from smallpox?
I don't know.
I honestly don't.
I think a lot of people would.
Airborne Ebola?
Definitely.
So it really is about the severity of the emergency.
Not so much the merit.
But I ultimately come to conclude with the original mandate.
A $5 fine equivalent to $150.
That's not that bad.
It's bad.
I'm not a fan.
I'm glad, you know, this guy went about his business the way he did and filed suit.
But what they were saying was, everyone's got to do it, and if you don't, we're going to fine you.
I find it fascinating that they were trying to vaccinate against smallpox, which protected everybody from smallpox, but then this one guy who didn't want to do it was a problem.
I guess their concern is mutation, their concern is asymptomatic spread or whatever.
But even this instance, all they said was fine, pay the fine, you can keep going about your daily business.
Not right now.
And they want to take your food away from you.
So, I want you to remember that.
The next time you decide to say to somebody, feeding my kids is more important than defending my freedoms, I'll just say, alright, well, you know, get in line behind Noam Chomsky.
At least you'll have your food.
Actually, maybe Noam Chomsky's making that perfect point.
Noam Chomsky and the Left will deprive you of food unless you get on your knees.
So please, if that is the route you want to take, I want you to look your child in the eye right now and tell them to start praying to Lord and Saint Fauci.
To learn to drop to their knees and beg to be fed, because that is the future you are building for them.
I understand it's difficult.
I understand I don't have kids.
People say, Tim, you don't have kids.
You don't understand.
You're right.
One thing I do understand, though, is it may be a difficult choice.
You may not want to have to do it, and you'd prefer the easy route of making sure your kids are fed.
But please, just make sure your kids learn Mandarin and learn to live on their knees.
Because if that's really the future you want for them, so be it.
I don't believe, right now, that your children would go without food.
We're not at a point where there are gulags in the United States, but we may get there if Noam Chomsky and his followers have anything to say about it.
So maybe right now the real solution is move somewhere where you're protected and can feed your kids and you don't have to live on your knees.
I'm surprised by this really.
It is kind of the most shocking thing ever to hear someone say, I want my children to know a life living on their knees.
Yeah.
Alright.
It's all you, then.
We'll see how that plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Over the past weekend, new information pertaining to the Alec Baldwin shooting incident has emerged, and while I don't normally care to talk about celebrity gossip and distraction stories, I don't actually think this one is too big of a distraction.
I certainly think there are more important things to talk about, like Fauci and the dog experiments, or Let me just say something right off the bat to clear the details.
But culturally, I think this is the kind of thing that we do need to talk about for a
few reasons.
One, gun rights, gun safety, but also how politics is playing a role in whether or not
people want to hold Alec Baldwin accountable.
Let me just say something right off the bat to clear up the details.
For those that don't know the context, I'm assuming most of you do, but I'll make it
quick.
Alec Baldwin is filming a new movie called Rust.
He was working with a gun as part of a scene.
It discharged and it struck a cinematographer, killing her, hit her in the stomach.
Apparently, it may have even damaged her spinal cord, but nonetheless, she ended up losing her life.
And it went through her and hit the shoulder of the director.
Now, many on the left are saying it was an accident, it's not his fault.
Many people who work on film sets are saying, I work on film sets, it's not his fault.
And it's really amazing.
It may be due to the fact that Alec Baldwin is a very prominent political activist.
He rags on Trump and Trump supporters.
He promotes leftist ideals all day.
Establishment, not really leftist, you know, like the establishment Democrats.
And I believe that's probably the only reason they're defending him.
If it was anyone else, someone not famous or someone on the right, they'd absolutely be blaming this person and saying, this is why we need gun laws.
At the same time, you have a viral tweet from someone saying, I can't believe that people think Alec Baldwin should be in jail, and also that Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
And I saw that tweet.
It's got 5,000 retweets.
People on the left are absolutely pushing this narrative.
Kyle Rittenhouse has nothing to do with this.
It's a completely different circumstance.
But they're making a political point.
And the problem is, they just don't know anything.
Which is why I think this story actually is important.
Now, I don't know exactly how to cut through all the lies about what happened and to make the important points that need to be made to the people who will never hear them.
Maybe the best thing you can do is try and share this video with them and we can go over the details and I can explain to you why.
It's Alec Baldwin's fault.
He was the producer of the movie.
You know, a lot of people are like, it's not his fault.
It's the Armorer's fault.
He hired these people.
He was the boss.
He was in charge.
And that's one of the best points made I've heard so far.
Someone said, as the actor, it's not his fault.
As the producer, it was.
I say, none of that matters as the person being handed a gun.
It's his fault.
Period.
Now I want to make a few very important points.
First, the new information we have is that Alec Baldwin was actually drawing the weapon and pointing it at the camera.
That, as my understanding, violates every safety rule in Hollywood and in any standard range or, you know, a shooting incident.
I'm not talking about active conflict.
In any circumstance where you are intending to use a weapon in defense or offense, like war, You only point the weapon at whatever it is you intend to destroy, period.
I don't care if it's an airsoft gun, a paintball gun, unless you are intending to point it at someone and inflict that damage.
Like I said, paintball gun or airsoft could be for sport, but it's gonna do some damage, it's gonna make contact.
You do not point that weapon.
He was pointing it at the camera.
We had tons of people say on set, you never actually point the weapon at an actor or crew or camera or equipment.
Editing is used to make it seem like you are.
And that's one of the big issues I think here, that Alec Baldwin was completely negligent.
Now here's some important things.
Alec Baldwin was not handed a prop gun.
He was handed a real gun with a live round.
He didn't check.
The gun did not misfire.
It fired and was negligent discharge.
Baldwin did not intend to harm anyone, so we believe, but as a producer and the person wielding the weapon, it is 100% his fault.
It is his fault.
There's a lot to talk about.
Let's read some of the news, and then I want to talk about the politics of this.
How it's absolutely become a left versus right issue.
Let me just say, I'll just say it like this.
If I say, like, I'm an armorer, here's a gun.
Point it at that person and pull the trigger for the film, and then you do You're going to get in trouble.
Another example someone gave.
I hand you the keys to a car and say, everything on the car works.
Get in it and drive as fast as you can towards that woman.
And then you do.
Oh, but he told me the car was fine.
The brakes didn't work.
Sorry, that's your fault.
You got in a vehicle.
You drove it towards someone.
I don't understand how people don't get this, but I think it's very simple.
It's politics.
Alec Baldwin's garbage impersonation of Trump is all they need, and they're going to defend him tooth and nail, even though he's literally handed a real gun.
I'm assuming, based on that it's a period film, I'm assuming, you know, 45, uh, Colt, Long Colt, as some call it.
Here's what they say.
Some interesting information here.
LA Times reporting.
In the newly released document, Sosa said someone identified the weapon as a cold gun, meaning it did not have any live rounds.
But instead, the gun discharged, striking Hutchins in her chest.
And Sosa in his right shoulder, according to a Santa Fe County, New Mexico Sheriff's Detectives affidavit used to obtain a search warrant.
Hutchins was pronounced dead at an Albuquerque hospital.
The shooting took place after six members of the film's crew walked off the set after complaining to the production company about payment and housing.
Camera operator Reed Russell told detective Joel Cano, the affidavit offered the most detailed chronology of the unfolding tragedy.
The day started late because the production hired another camera crew and was working with only one camera.
Sosa said three people were handling the gun for the scene.
Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, then assistant director Dave Halls, who handed the gun to Baldwin, Halls had taken one of the three prop guns.
This is where they're manipulating everybody.
They are not prop guns, period.
Now, I know.
On set, they say any gun used is a prop gun.
That sounds like medium manipulation to protect the industry.
There's real guns and there's fake guns.
Is it a replica?
Is it a prop?
Or is it a live gun?
Baldwin was given a real gun with real bullets in it.
They say.
Halls had taken one of the three prop guns— I'm sorry, one of the three guns set up by Gutierrez-Reed on a cart left outside the structure because of COVID restrictions.
Halls did not know live rounds were in the gun when he handed it to Baldwin.
Why didn't he check?
And Halls yelled, cold gun, according to the affidavit.
Sosa said cast and crew preparing the scene before lunch, but then had a meal away from the rehearsal at around 12.30pm.
When they returned, Sosa said he wasn't sure if the gun was checked again, the affidavit said.
Joel said as far as he knows, no one gets checked for live ammunition on their person prior and after the scenes being filmed.
The only thing checked are the firearms to avoid live ammunition being in them.
Joel stated there should never be live rounds whatsoever near or around the scene.
That's interesting.
They're saying that they went, they were preparing for a scene before lunch.
Had the meal away from the area.
So is it possible that someone went in with live ammo and loaded the gun with it?
That's one of the interesting questions about this.
A bit too speculative, I don't know.
When they came back from lunch, a creeping shadow prompted the camera to be moved to a different angle.
As Baldwin was explaining how he was going to draw his gun and where his arm would be when he pulled the gun from the holster, it discharged, Russell said.
Well, in one statement that Jack Basobic, he scooped the LA Times, he said, Set member tells Human Events that Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a church scene with the cinematographer when he drew the gun and said something like, is this what you want?
And then pulled the trigger.
Director was standing behind her.
I actually believe the statement provided by Jack Posobiec.
Why?
It's more blunt.
But also, it's what we now know to have occurred for the most part.
Now, I'll explain.
The director was standing behind her.
We know that to be true.
He was rehearsing the scene.
What's added to the statement that Jack Posobiec has is, is this what you want?
Now, I don't think that means he was pointing and I'm trying to shoot him.
He was rehearsing the scene.
But pulling the trigger is the key part.
He was pulling the trigger.
They say it discharged.
The L.A.
Times does not include the fact that he pulled the trigger, at least according to one member on the set.
Sosa said he was looking over Hutchins' shoulder when the gun discharged.
Hutchins grabbed her midsection, stumbled backwards, and was assisted to the ground.
It's crazy.
Apparently, this is like, wow, look at this.
The search warrant said Russell recalled hearing a loud bang.
Seeing a bloody Sosa and hearing Hutchins say she couldn't feel her legs.
The shooting came after crew members raised concerns about safety conditions on the set.
Two Rust crew members told the LA Times less than a week earlier, a stunt double had fired two accidental prop gun discharges after being told the gun was cold.
Alec Baldwin's at fault.
I think... So let's get into this.
Let's get into this.
This is really, really great.
Here's the viral tweet.
I can't believe we share the earth with people who think Alec Baldwin belongs in jail, but Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
I can very easily break down for you why Alec Baldwin belongs in jail and Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
Now, now let me slow down.
I don't actually believe Alec Baldwin belongs in jail, but I understand the argument for it.
I personally don't think Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero, but he certainly doesn't belong in jail, but I can make an argument for why people think he does.
I'll just tell you my opinion, just so you understand.
It was clearly an accident, and I don't think putting Alec Baldwin in prison will change the fact that he's probably gonna be a lot more careful from this point on, but there is still probable cause, and I wonder if an investigation will reveal some serious criminal activity.
Kyle Rittenhouse was responding to very serious rioting.
A 70-year-old man was bludgeoned over the head and left bleeding on the ground.
I can certainly understand why he wanted to go out and help, and he stopped people from pushing a flaming dumpster into a gas station.
Now, a lot of people will say, clearly he's being a hero.
I get that.
I do.
I kind of feel like, across the board, he put himself in a situation, he did it, honestly, when he restrains himself from shooting at people when they back away and things like that, he did good in that capacity.
I can understand that.
I personally think he should not have been there.
I know it's tough.
That's just my opinion, and it's not like it's one of those easy ethical lines.
I'm not going to be, like, super adamant.
They should have never been there.
I kind of think he shouldn't have been there, but I certainly understand why he'd want to be, and I can certainly understand the argument as to why people think he was a hero in the circumstances.
He was defending himself.
He only fired when fired upon.
But I gotta say, as much as there's very serious problems on the ground in Kenosha, 17-year-old kid coming out with a rifle?
Not a good idea.
So I'm not gonna pretend that, like, I believe he's a hero just because of the politics of it.
I don't.
I think he was a kid who thought he was doing something good, and I think he was doing something foolish.
That being said, there could have been a major gas station explosion, so, you know.
It is what it is.
I certainly think it was a clear case of self-defense, and we'll see how the trial plays out.
But let's break down why Alec Baldwin does belong in jail.
Now, these are both really interesting cases, and I'll put it this way.
51% I say, no jail.
49% I say, lock him up.
It's not an easy moral line because there's a lot of points to be made and I think ultimately this might have to go before a jury.
Actually, I'll say this.
I don't know if he should go to jail.
I do know this is a criminal charge.
Alec Baldwin must be criminally charged for this.
You do not get to take a gun, point it at people, and then pull the trigger and then say, whoopsie!
Whatever comes out of the gun is your fault.
Negligent discharge?
Manslaughter.
But let me go in detail.
We have reporting now that there were other negligent discharges on set when the crew did not tell people... I'm sorry, when the crew told people it was a cold gun.
The people with the weapons didn't check them.
Alec Baldwin is a producer on the film.
He's in charge.
That means there's several things to consider.
Alec Baldwin has prior training with firearms from other movies.
Now, I don't think that means he's gonna be a great shot or that he understands everything about guns, but people who have worked with him said, on the set of other movies, he went by the book on everything.
So what happened now?
That Alec Baldwin, with prior training, Didn't check the weapon, pointed it at people, and pulled the trigger.
That was brought up by Robert Barnes last week when we had him on the Tim Castorow Podcast.
He said a prosecutor should be looking into how he, with training and knowing how these scenes are done, how did he violate these rules?
It's an important question.
Then we have other factors.
As the producer on the film, it's his responsibility when the gun discharges more than once to be like, we've got a very serious safety issue, and the buck stops with him.
Now, those instances alone don't say much.
If you're a producer on a film and you hire people and those people do a bad job and there's discharges, you run over and you say, I'm firing these people, we're shutting this down, it's dangerous, and I wouldn't blame you if, you know, let's say this.
Stunt double has the gun, was told it was cold, it fires, it hits somebody.
I don't think Alec Baldwin is going to go to prison or jail or get a criminal charge for that.
And in that instance, I don't think the stunt double necessarily would either.
However, the individual with the gun should have absolutely checked.
If that was all it was...
I'd say it's a tragedy.
It's an accident.
Add these things together.
Baldwin has prior experience working with guns on set.
Baldwin was the boss and knew that there were problems.
The crew was already walking off set because of some of these problems.
Then he himself is handed the gun and does not check.
There's no way that Alec Baldwin didn't know about those discharges.
I mean, he's a producer, right?
Now, even if he didn't know, I'd still argue that's criminal negligence.
You mean you're operating a business with guns lying around, you didn't check them, they're not secured, and you didn't know they were discharged?
In that case, I would say it's negligence.
For the most part, I would say put it before a jury, and if that was it, like, he just didn't know, I'd make the argument that he was criminally negligent by not looking after over the guns on his own set, taking one, pointing it at a person, and killing that person.
I, however, don't think it's fair to say that Alec Baldwin didn't know about this.
I mean, if the crew is threatening to walk off set, he had to know about it, right?
Someone had to be like, Alec, the crew's gonna quit.
Why?
Because the gun went off a couple times.
Well, whatever.
Give me the gun.
Bang.
Interesting.
Now you have some very serious questions that get into less, I would say, less likely territory, but interesting territory nonetheless.
Was Alec Baldwin angry?
Was he really angry with the crew threatening to cancel him on his movie?
Was there fighting between the crew and Alec Baldwin?
I think there was fighting between Alec Baldwin and the crew, as he is a producer and the crew said the conditions were garbage.
The crew had said they were being treated like trash by the higher-ups and the people making the film, which includes Alec Baldwin.
And then Alec Baldwin points a gun at a crew member and kills her.
It's interesting, isn't it?
Now, I'm not here to say I think there's a high probability that Candace Owens... I was looking at a news story, Candace Owens, that Alec Baldwin shot somebody on purpose, but we do have a story about Candace Owens I'm going to mention in a second.
I was reading the title and then, wrong name.
Candace Owens wasn't there, by the way.
No, but I don't think there's a high probability that Alec Baldwin said, I'm going to kill a crew member, I'm so mad at this person.
I do think there's a possibility that Alec Baldwin said, I can't stand these people, these people annoy me, I don't care.
The assistant director holding the gun is part of the crew.
So if you know the crew is really, really mad, and then you're handed a gun, and you know the person who handed it to you is mad at you, wouldn't you check that gun?
Conservative pundit Candace Owens attacks Alec Baldwin over accidental shooting, calling it poetic justice for his previous criticism of Donald Trump.
I absolutely reject that statement.
I disagree.
And, um, I, I, I, I, yeah, I rejected the statement from Candace Owens.
I certainly understand what she's trying to say, but this woman died, man.
That's not her fault.
There's no poetic justice in an innocent person dying because Alec Baldwin's a dick.
I get the point.
You know, Alec Baldwin said, I wonder how it feels to accidentally kill somebody or to, you know, something like that, referring to a cop or to wrongfully kill somebody.
And everyone was pointing this out and I'm like, dude, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not okay with that.
Whatever went down with Alec Baldwin, whatever's going on politically, a woman who was working on a film took a bullet to the chest and died.
What did she do?
That was justice.
That was poetic justice.
No, that's not true.
This is not karmic retribution or anything.
There is no justice in a wealthy multi-millionaire accidentally killing someone else.
There's no justice there, and there's no justice in someone dying, at least in my opinion for the most part.
I'm against the death penalty.
There is, you know, in certain circumstances like war and self-defense, I understand why someone would need to kill somebody else, but I oppose the death penalty.
So I reject this.
I can certainly, again, understand the sentiment and agree with it to a certain degree.
Alec Baldwin is a dick.
He's overly political, he was negligent across the board, he was responsible for all of this in every capacity, and now, It's all falling in on him.
But the person who lost their life was this woman, who was not Alec Baldwin, who was not a high-profile personality, who maybe was a Democrat and leftist and said nasty things about Trump too.
But Alec Baldwin doesn't deserve to be hurt over his opinions.
This woman doesn't deserve to be hurt for any reason.
I mean, nobody, in my opinion.
Unless, again, self-defense.
Alec Baldwin can say all the worst things in the world.
He can be a really, really bad person.
But I do not think that anyone is deserving of getting shot for being a dick.
So poetic justice, I disagree with.
In the end, it's amazing that there are many people on the left who are telling me that Alec Baldwin was not responsible for this shooting.
He was handed a gun.
And when that was all I knew, it was his fault.
That's what I said.
If someone comes to me and they hand me a gun, The first thing I'm going to do is, if it's a revolver, I'm going to open it up and check to make sure it is not loaded.
And if there are rounds in it, you know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to take them out and inspect them.
We have been to... I've been to many ranges.
We have a range.
We're building another range.
Someone hands me a gun.
They hand it to... So, first of all, we all know gun safety when we're on the range.
We take it very seriously.
You ever see somebody getting lax, we flip out, we yell at them, we... But, someone will pull out a revolver.
So I've got a revolver, I've got the governor.
Fires a .45 ACP, .45 Colt, and .410 shotgun shells.
And, they have it pointed down, the cylinder is out, can't be fired, and they're holding it in such a way, and when it's given to me, I will take the rounds out, and make sure I know what they are.
Because if you were just handed a gun, and you're like, it's good, and then something goes wrong, you did not inspect the weapon before you sought to discharge something potentially dangerous.
Now, that being said, a revolver is easy to do.
To be fair, people will load a magazine and hand it to you, and you assume, you're looking at it like, okay, these are 9mm, we're good to go, and you'll load it, you'll inspect the weapon, make sure everything's good, and then we take safety very seriously, but sometimes there's bad rounds.
So, I have a Beretta, and some of these 9mm, they just don't work.
They jam non-stop, and so I'm like, as soon as we got the first jam, I was like, okay, we clear it, we're going again, we get a second jam, I'm like, it's jamming again, after like two rounds, and it's like, well, clear it out, fire it again, jam, take it out, turn, nope, done.
Too many jams.
I'm not gonna screw around with that.
And we've had other instances where it's like, okay, that was not okay, you get any sign of problem, Step away.
There's a viral video of a guy who was firing a .50 BMG and the gun exploded on him.
He had no way of knowing that was gonna happen, but that's why whenever I'm on the range, I'm like, safety is paramount.
Now think about the circumstances with Alec Baldwin.
Leftists not calling for gun control over this?
I find that strange.
Anyway, look, I don't know.
I really wanted to talk about this.
It's not the most important story in the world.
Some people are saying it's a distraction, but I think when it comes to gun issues, personal responsibility, and politics, they're all starting to come together on this one, so I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Hashtag Arrest Fauci is trending on Twitter.
Again, it's trended several times, this time over images of particularly gruesome animal experimentation.
Images of dogs with their heads in boxes, and the boxes are full of infected sand flies.
There's some graphic warning before I talk about the full details of what the tests ended up, what they did and what they were doing.
Just want to give you that warning.
I think anal testing is bad for the most part, but I'm not 100% opposed to it.
However, the questions around this particular story is why were they engaged in this experiment?
Now that you've been warned about the graphic nature of this, I'm not going to show any photos or anything, but let me just explain.
The dogs had their vocal cords slit so they couldn't whimper or cry.
Their heads were placed in boxes that were full of infected sandflies that proceeded to eat their faces alive.
Many people were wondering why this had to be done.
Now, I think this is bad, and I think it's wrong, and I think there's gruesome studies carried out on these animals, and I would prefer maybe a slightly slower We know these horrifying stories about that Unit 7, whatever, you know, the Japanese scientific unit, and what the Nazi scientists were doing.
They did brutal stuff in Japan.
There was, I think it was Operation Paperclip, I'm not sure, where we started recruiting all of these scientists that were doing awful things in these foreign countries.
But for one example, in Japan, they would take a prisoner, and they would stick their arm out into freezing cold, And freeze it to see what would happen to the living person on the inside.
And I'm pretty sure they would shatter it in certain minutes, like break it off just to see what would happen.
So of course, seeing these photos, people are calling for Fauci's arrest.
I'm actually going to offer up a slight defense of Fauci.
I know the dude doesn't really deserve it for the most part for a lot of reasons, but it's not so much about Fauci, it's about scientific research.
It's about this idea that people will expect wealth and splendor without sacrifice.
I'm reminded of the anime full metal alchemist.
Let me nerd out.
Equivalent exchange.
You must give something to get something.
I think about all the iPhones and smartphones people have and they celebrate the great technology without realizing all of the back-breaking labor slavery and the suicides around, say, iPhones, for instance.
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine.
I maybe have told you the story before where she was saying she wanted to make the world a better place.
I said, yeah, for you and for your country and for your, you know, your tribe.
And she's like, no, no, for everybody.
And I'm like, you're using a MacBook.
The people who made that were performing near ritual suicide, walking off a building in single file lines because of the torture conditions they were living under.
How is buying a MacBook contributing to the greater of society?
And then you get these dumb memes on the left where it's like, I live in society, you know?
You know that stupid one where the guy's like, the peasant is carrying the sticks and he's like, we should improve society somewhat.
And the guy says, yeah, you participate in it, how strange.
That's a stupid argument.
It's like a child's argument.
You complain about how bad the world is, but then actively fund the bad parts of it?
Because I'm more effective?
Please, every despot has said everything the same.
And that's why I am mostly opposed to animal research.
But, what I mean to say is, You want your medicines to work?
Okay.
We can choose to do experiments on humans or we can choose to do it on animals.
And we have varying degrees of experimentation from lab mice and rats to dogs and cats because we want bigger and smaller and different animals to test on to see how things happen.
And that means through this experimentation, and not all of it, you end up with things of comfort.
You end up with medications that can cure you, make you less sick, heal your wounds, treat your mind, and it's because we tested it on something.
Now, there's also an option that people could be willing participants and choose on a consent form saying they will accept, you know, these medical tests, and then early stages might kill people.
So there's very serious challenges.
Animal testing is a part of the scientific process.
I'm not saying it's good.
Here's the story from stardem.com.
Fauci pressed over U.S.
funding of cruel medical experiments on dogs and puppies.
Beagles locked in cages with sand flies, vocal cords removed.
Federal lawmakers are seeking answers from Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding potential U.S.
funding for medical research involving cruel treatment of dogs, including puppies, locking beagles in with sand flies, and removal of vocal cords to quiet their barking.
Oh, because when they were suffering, they had to remove their ability to make noise.
Nancy Mace spearheaded a letter with other Republican and Democratic congressional members asking Fauci and the NIAID about reports from watchdog groups Fauci is the director of the NIAID.
Quote, according to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer
washedog group White Coat Waste Project and subsequent media coverage, from October 2018
until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.68 million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving
44 beagle puppies.
The dogs were all between six and eight months old.
The commissioned tests involved injecting and force-feeding the puppies an experimental
drug for several weeks, before killing and dissecting them.
The letter from Mace and, uh, uh, the letter read, from Mace and 23 other lawmakers.
Animal rights and other advocates also worry about reports that beagles and other dogs in the medical experiments had their vocal cords removed to quiet their barking and yelping, quote, Of particular concern is the fact that the invoice to NIAID included a line item for chordectomy.
As you are likely aware, chordectomy is also known as devocalization, involves slitting a dog's vocal cords in order to prevent them from barking, howling, or crying.
The letter reads, in reference to concerns about the debarking of dogs.
The congressional correspondence was signed by other Republicans, including Carlos Gimenez, Daniel Webster, Brian Mast, Bill Posey, Scott Franklin, and Maria Salazar, as well as Democrats such as Cindy Axne of Ohio, Jimmy Gomez of California, and Eleanor Holmes Norton of DC.
U.S.
funding of medical research involving potentially cruel treatment of dogs, in particular beagles, is being scrutinized by watchdog groups such as the White Coat Waste Project.
One of the projects criticized the group's $375,800 U.S.
medical research grant from NIAID to a lab in Tunisia that allegedly involved locking beagles' heads in mesh cages filled with hundreds of infected sandflies.
There were also reports of researchers removing dogs' vocal cords.
Okay, so you get the point.
And for this, arrest Fauci is trending.
Fox News reports, Twitter users posted the hashtag, calling out Fauci, director of the NIAID, we get it, over reports of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to subject dogs to cruel tests.
And you have these meme photos.
This is why I use Stardem first out of Fox, because Fox just shows a bunch of people tweeting about it instead of core details.
BDW tweeted, if you're angry about how Fauci uses puppies, just wait until you hear about he uses COVID vaccines on healthy kids.
All right.
Arrest Fauci is trending.
He funded, first word says, he funded gain of function and he funded cruel treatment of innocent dogs.
He's an evil doctor and a despicable person.
I'd agree with that.
Additionally, Fauci has been criticized after an NIH official appeared to confirm that taxpayers funded gain-of-function research on the coronavirus in a lab in Wuhan, despite Fauci's repeated claims that was not the case.
In July, Republican Senator Rand Paul called for the Department of Justice to issue a criminal referral against Fauci for lying to Congress about gain-of-function research funded by the NIH.
I will be sending a letter to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he has lied to Congress.
We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function.
Rand Paul told Hannity.
He's doing this because he has a self-interest to cover his tracks and to cover his connection to the Wuhan lab.
Fauci's NIH told Fox News this week that Fauci had been entirely truthful during his testimony on gain-of-function research.
He hasn't.
He lied.
And people are lying to cover his tracks.
And now people are starting to dig into what else he was funding.
I think it's a good thing.
I think for too long, people like Fauci and special interests are able to do horrifying things because people don't pay attention.
Interestingly, the story about these beagles and what goes on with them, it's been around for some time.
Animal testing has been frowned upon for some time.
But as I mentioned earlier, there's some very serious considerations here.
We don't like the idea that dogs are being tested on, but there may be reasons to test on dogs.
Maybe a certain protein metabolization, so we say we have to use dogs for this one.
And I think people don't realize this.
Maybe now people are starting to realize this and things could change.
Maybe for the better.
Maybe there are better ways to go about doing these tests to secure medications for humans.
Here's what I think.
I think that many of these companies choose the cheaper route.
They could go a safer route, they could go a more ethical route, but that would be expensive.
And so what they do is they say, just cram a beagle's head in a box and see what happens.
Instead of actually having decent parameters and saying, we're gonna try and avoid mutilating animals and cutting them apart, and these stories are...
Absolutely brutal.
I was reading about what they do to these dogs, man.
Absolutely brutal.
But so long as no one is paying attention, they get away with this evil stuff.
And for the longest time, people weren't paying attention.
Now, I do think it's funny that we have this story from The Intercept, bred to suffer inside the barbaric U.S.
industry of dog experimentation, by Glenn Greenwald and Leighton Akio Woodhouse, from 2018.
As you know, Glenn Greenwald is no longer at The Intercept, is very critical of it.
But I find a few things fascinating.
The story's been around for a long time.
Glenn Greenwald cover it.
He runs a dog rescue in Brazil.
I believe he still does.
I know he did.
Been around for a long time.
Why now are people all of a sudden concerned about these dogs?
Could it be political?
Yep.
I'm willing to bet it's almost entirely political.
Not for everybody, obviously.
People knew about these experimentations and didn't like it.
There's a lot of people now probably only are mad about it because it's Fauci and people hate Fauci.
But you know what?
I got no problem with that.
Welcome to the fight.
Welcome to the fray.
If you're now gonna stand up and say, hey, maybe this is wrong.
Maybe now you're paying attention.
I think it's a good thing.
Hopefully it's on principle and not tribalism, but for the time being if we can actually address how horrifying this process is.
I want to tell you exactly what Fauci was funding.
I want to read for you a story from Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept, not a right-wing publication, so you can understand what Fauci was saying yes to.
The Intercept reports, There is a largely hidden, poorly regulated, and highly profitable industry in the U.S.
that has a gruesome function, breeding dogs for the sole purpose of often torturous experimentation, after which the dogs are killed because they are no longer of use.
Americans frequently express horror at festivals in countries such as China and South Korea where dogs are killed, cooked, and eaten.
Mainstream media outlets in the U.S.
routinely report with a tone of disgust on the use of dogs in those countries for food consumption.
And now I want to make that other point.
Why just dogs?
Why not any other animal?
And I genuinely mean it.
Now, I understand maybe there's a cultural and social aspect to this, why we care more about dogs being experimented on than, say, cows or whatever.
We don't mind eating cows and chickens or pigs.
We treat them like just stock.
Food.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I got a bunch of chickens.
You guys know I have a bunch of chickens.
I can look out the window and see Chicken City is underway, nearing completion, hopefully today or the next couple of days.
And I care about my chickens.
Especially the babies.
Now look, we got a bunch of babies that were born- that were already born.
We raised them, and I care about them, but I gotta be honest.
I care about the dogs and the cats that are here way more than the chickens.
Now the chickens that we actually bred and raised ourselves, I care a whole lot about.
They're like my pets, and you know what?
When they're old enough to lay eggs, we will eat them.
I don't think we're ever going to eat these chickens because they're layers.
You know, they lay eggs, so for the first few years, totally fine.
We don't want to eat them.
Maybe afterwards.
We will.
Because otherwise, what do you do?
You know, they just mill about and do chicken stuff, and that's when you eat them.
Maybe we won't for some of them.
I don't know.
Maybe because we're doing the show.
Some people have tweeted, you know, at me like, don't eat the chickens, they're your friends.
And it's like, well, so long as they're laying eggs, there's a reason to have them around.
And we like them because we put them on camera and they do chicken stuff.
But I think people need to realize, too, that, you know, humans and dogs, the theory has evolved together.
And so we have a very serious bond.
It's a fascinating story, by the way, which I will tell you.
I'm not saying it's true, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but my understanding is that humans had camps.
Nomadic.
A long time ago.
And they were wolves.
When humans would move their camp, they'd leave behind refuse, which the wolves would come and scavenge.
Eventually, some wolves were less afraid of the people.
Those that were less afraid were more likely to survive.
And if they were more likely to survive, there'd be more of them.
And then of that new batch of wolves that were less afraid of humans would be even more babies.
Now here's the thing.
Humans don't like wolves.
So the humans who were more likely to tolerate The encroachment of the wolves were also more likely to survive.
Why?
Well, as it goes, the wolves that were closer to the camp would be marking their territory, something that humans don't care about.
But other predators do.
They would smell the wolf urine.
They'd be like, I ain't going anywhere near his wolf territory.
And so eventually the wolves and the humans that were more tolerant of each other Started to live closer and closer together, to the point where wolves would freely walk the camps of some of these human tribes.
By then, I think they were called proto-dogs.
They were much more tolerant.
Humans were very tolerant of them and got along with them.
And then, these proto-dogs would start following, or maybe it was the wolves at this point, but like proto-dogs, kind of wolf, would follow humans on the hunt.
And the humans would be like, hey, hey, this thing knows where the animal is.
It could smell it.
Together, humans and dogs were able to hunt prey neither could do alone.
Humans and wolves.
So over time, we became somewhat symbiotic.
I don't think symbiosis is the right word for it.
Maybe?
A symbiotic relationship emerged where dogs provided some level of protection.
Guard dogs.
And assisted in the hunt.
And humans grew to love them because the humans that did were more likely to survive.
And thus, man's best friend.
The story of cats is actually quite funny.
They're an invasive species that humans tolerate.
Why?
They have big eyes that remind us of babies.
Apparently that's what they say.
Take a look at these stories and you can see this poor image of this dog.
That sad face.
And then you start to realize that, while I certainly think animal cruelty is wrong across the board, if I'm going to eat one of my chickens, it is going to be put out of its misery very, very quickly without realizing what's happening.
And I'm sad.
I don't like to end life, but I also understand as a person, a human who eats, this is what you do.
There are people who go to the store and they don't realize what they're eating.
You're eating life.
Something was alive.
It's dead now and you consume it.
That's the circle of life.
To improve the lives of humans, there are many people who found it easy to do the experimentations on dogs.
As I mentioned, sometimes maybe it has to be on dogs for certain things.
I don't like the idea.
Locked in a small cage, subjected to procedures that impose extreme pain and suffering, but I don't let emotion dominate my worldview.
And that means there's kind of a conundrum here.
If you are dominated by logic, you would be no different than those awful scientists breaking off someone's arm and freezing it.
You don't care about the individual.
You don't care about their life.
If you're dominated by emotion, you would sacrifice the potential for gain and the improvement and protection of individuals because everything is wrong all the time.
Not only that, but as an overly emotional being, you might actually become violent and dangerous like a lot of the woke people are.
The truth is, there's a healthy balance.
Recognizing that we do have to do some brutal experimentation.
And recognizing where that line is and what we're willing to accept.
It's not easy.
A lot of people don't realize they benefit from some of the most brutal experimentation possible.
Notably, the production of standard medications.
I think it's like aspirin and acetaminophen and ibuprofen.
I think they use fetal cell tissue.
To make these products, or to test them, or whatever.
What I do know is, it's been widely reported, as people claim they won't get the vaccine because they used fetal cells in the testing of it from aborted fetuses, these organizations come out and say, so all these other medications do too.
But here's what you realize.
A lot of these people say, wow, I didn't know that.
I guess I won't take aspirin anymore.
That's the important point.
The view from the establishment left is that anybody who didn't already know and finds out now is a hypocrite.
I think a lot of people who are finding out what's going on right now are changing their view of things.
And that goes along with Fauci and his dogs.
I can't imagine that this group going after Fauci is a right-wing group for animal rights.
But certainly the right is now ready to understand just how brutal and awful these practices are, and it may have been Fauci who led them there.
All in all, probably a good thing.
They mentioned the Intercept Report.
According to U.S.
Department of Agriculture's aptly named Animal Usage Report, 60,979 dogs were used in the U.S.
for experimentation in 2016 alone.
The reported number of all animals used for experimentation, whose reporting was required, was 820,000.
Taking a person and taking away their will, their free will, their rights.
Wrong.
Now we have people who argue that killing animals for food is the same thing.
Now this I disagree with.
I certainly think that animals do also have Rights.
I wouldn't necessarily say they have the same rights as people, but there's certain rights.
I mean, animal cruelty is wrong for a reason.
Some animals have some rights.
I certainly think so.
Because I believe rights are part of natural law.
Anyway, I digress.
Some animals do.
And then we get to the question of, are we to use them to experiment on, to better ourselves?
And you have to be somewhat cold, a little bit.
I don't think people want to recognize this, but I'm not going to play emotional games with people just because Fauci is a dickhead, you know?
He's a liar, he's wrong all the time, he's awful.
But, I'm not going to blame him for the fact that he signed off on funding for what's been going on forever.
I certainly think it is bad.
But there are very serious questions you need to ask yourself.
Like the founder of, not the founder, it's like the high-ranking person at PETA.
Diabetic.
Getting insulin derived from pigs.
And many people call this person out as a hypocrite.
Why should you be allowed to harvest the insulin from pigs, kill them in the process, assuming they do, harm them, cage them, but then demand other people can't have pets, can't have a dog, can't have a cat?
Hypocrisy.
And the response is, I'm more effective this way.
That's always the answer, isn't it?
But these are the questions that people need to ask themselves.
Do you really want to know how the sausage is made?
Because once you find out, you might not want to participate in that anymore.
It's brutal questions.
When you realize that around the world, slavery still exists.
When you realize that no matter where you are, all of these great things you're getting, these technological developments, partly include, in many ways, aborted fetal cell tissue in animals, dogs, If it was you, could you pull the trigger?
Probably not.
You know, a lot of these people who grow up in cities have become so weak they couldn't shoot an animal to eat it.
They'd be, no, I can't do it, I can't kill it.
It's good in some ways.
Me, I've never been like that for whatever reason, even growing up in a city.
I don't want to hurt any animal.
And I hope I never have to.
But, when it comes to raising livestock to consume, You do.
You do.
And it's an important lesson for kids.
Do you want to know where the chicken nuggets you eat come from?
When you go to the store and we get a chicken sandwich, when you get a cheeseburger, these kids need to understand what they're doing.
They don't.
I love that.
I had a steak for breakfast.
It was great.
Local farm sirloin.
Delicious.
Lightly seasoned.
And as I was eating it, I was reminded of that story on Twitter where these people were like, wait a minute, you mean steaks are made of muscle?
And they're all like, I thought meat was just like the meat.
What?
What are you thinking?
It's muscle.
You're not eating tongue or intestine.
What do you think you're eating?
Just meat.
You think like animals are just made of like raw steak walking around?
There's like no heart or anything?
Like animals carry with them just this rich protein material that does nothing for their bodies?
It's muscle.
These people don't know that.
So look, you want to arrest Fauci, you want to throw him out?
By all means.
I'm not a fan of this stuff, but I hope you take a look into these factors and see how this sausage gets made, because then you might be like, wow, there's a lot more people involved in this.
