S5233 - Biden Threatens Lockdown Unless People Get Vaccine Amid Omicron Variant, Media Starts Fearmongering
Biden Threatens Lockdown Unless People Get Vaccine Amid Omicron Variant, Media Starts Fearmongering. Democrat states have long pushed lockdowns and other authoritarian measure.
But now with news of the Omicron Variant Biden has stated that lockdowns will not be needed "for now" so long as people get vaccinated and wear masks.
Its a veiled threat considering Biden has already tried and failed to implement vaccine mandates.
In Australia things seem to be going from bad to worse.
#Biden
#Democrats
#OmicronVariant
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is November 29th, 2021, and our first story, Biden threatens new lockdowns unless everybody gets vaccinated and wears their masks.
Now, what he really said was, we don't need lockdowns with this new Omicron variant freaking everyone out, as long as you get your vaccine, which is actually a threat.
And these news organizations bury the lead.
We also got to take a look at the authoritarianism in Australia and how bad it's getting.
In our next story, Justice Smollett is facing trial finally after three years over his hate crime hoax.
And in our last story, a father trying to pick up his child amid a court order was shot and killed by his ex-wife's boyfriend.
Now this is a big question about gun rights and self-defense.
Personally, I side with the father who lost his life because this is a man being barred from his son when he had a legal right to get his son.
It's an interesting story and a very serious debate.
Now before we get started, if you like this show, please leave us a good review and give us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
And of course, the media is acting like everyone is freaking out and terrified.
And perhaps that's true of big cities, but where I live and when I was just in Texas, doesn't seem to be a whole lot of fear around any of it.
I mean, right now, as they're saying this new variant is serious.
Australia is putting in a two week lockdown in place and banning certain travel.
And Joe Biden says he's going to be banning travel.
A lot of people in the media are certainly acting like the apocalypse is coming.
For me personally, you know, West Virginia and Western Maryland and Northern Virginia, I don't really see anybody freaking out over this.
So maybe the real fear is just coming from the media.
But many have pointed out that it's convenient a new variant is emerging, which may precipitate lockdowns as we enter midterm season and the Republicans stand to achieve a red tsunami, meaning based on the things we've already seen with polling and with the last election, people believe Republicans are going to sweep.
I don't know if that's true, and I don't like making predictions, because even when I made more facetious, exaggerated meme predictions, you know, people go nuts with it and pull quotes out of context.
I'll just say this, I don't know who's gonna win.
I don't know if it'll be Republicans or Democrats to gain power in November.
I can say that I believe lockdowns greatly advantage Democrats due to universal mail-in voting just naturally advantaging dense urban populations, which tend to be Democrat.
But here's the real kicker.
Now we know what's going on in Australia.
It's rather nightmarish as much as the propaganda machine is desperate to tell you that I'm wrong or that I'm making things up.
I just use their standard corporate press and boy are they freaking out that we are finding out and we're rather upset about their lockdowns and their relocations of the indigenous to quarantine camps 300 kilometers away.
But here in the US, Joe Biden says lockdowns not needed to curb coronavirus variant.
At least that's the headline here at The Hill.
They bury the lead.
It's interesting because that's not what Joe Biden said.
You see, I like The Hill.
They're not that bad.
But if you only read the media, they're not giving you the full context.
Joe Biden threatened a lockdown.
He didn't say we didn't need one.
He said, so long as you get your third vaccine, we won't need them for now.
Okay, that for now is a big indicator that he's not saying we don't need them.
But you see how they do this?
The headline is technically correct.
What they're saying is, if everybody gets their third shot, then we won't have a lockdown.
It's coercion.
And medical mandates, I strongly oppose across the board.
The government doesn't have the right to mandate a medical procedure.
And as such, a federal court has actually struck down more of the federal mandates for Medicare and Medicaid.
I'll pull that up specifically, but this is big.
Already, the Fifth Circuit Court has blocked Joe Biden's OSHA rule saying government can't mandate medical procedures like this.
Now they're getting struck down by the courts more to the point where I guess the Biden administration is actually saying federal workers don't have to be fired if they're unvaccinated for the holiday season at least.
And this was obvious.
We knew it would happen.
They're pushing back the deadlines because they know they don't have the legal authority to actually do it.
They're just trying to scare people, coerce them into getting the vaccine.
Now, as I always say, Government shouldn't be involved in that.
That's between you and your doctor.
And I stress this point.
We've had people on Timcast IRL who have gotten the vaccine and are fine.
We've had people who have been on the show and don't have it and are fine.
And we've had people who have been sick and not sick and we've been sick.
That's why I'm just like, dude, anecdotally, we've been through it all and we've seen a lot of it.
And, you know, here at the Timcast, uh, at, uh, uh, at Castcastle, With all the projects we do.
And I can only say we talked to our doctor and made sure that we got the appropriate treatment.
We did testing when everyone was sick.
Everyone's better now and everything's fine.
And that was because there's no one-size-fits-all policy for medical mandates.
But I will make a prediction.
I don't like to.
You know, like I said, but I'll tell you this.
I believe we will see lockdowns.
Absolutely.
Lockdowns greatly advantage Democrats.
They have every reason to do it.
And with news about this new variant, it seems extremely likely there will be some kind of lockdown.
Now in Europe, they're hard-locking down already.
Australia, gone completely nuts.
Wait till you see all the Australia stuff.
I've got to show you.
That country is insane.
These people are crackpots.
But, of course, I think this is all good reason to believe there will be more lockdowns.
It's not unreasonable.
Europe is doing it.
Australia is doing it.
Travel bans are coming in place.
It's like a repeat of last year.
Joe Biden's putting in new travel bans after criticizing Trump for the same thing.
Exactly.
Here we go again.
Well, let's read the news and see what Joe Biden said, and then we break down everything for you.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, and we are launching a new pop culture show.
That's right.
Talking about movies and video games and all that stuff and a little bit of politics here and there, but for the most part, look, man, we're all big fans of movies and games.
We got Hellbound on Netflix.
Not a big fan of Netflix, to be honest, but we can talk about Squid Game, Mr. Beast, and his thing.
And we've got the new Spider-Man movie, so we're launching a new pop culture show to get into all that stuff and make sure that our values are expressed in the culture we produce and as we explain our ideas surrounding content and things like that.
But also, as a member, you're supporting our journalists and all of our different shows and everything we're working on.
We've got Shane Cashman, Tales from the Inverted World.
We have a new show on conspiracy theories.
It's gonna be launching very soon.
Two new shows coming up within, like, this next week because we are working hard and it's all thanks to you guys as members.
So, don't forget, like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now, click the URL, share it, post it wherever you can.
Let's read the news and talk about what's coming.
From the Hill, Biden says lockdowns are not needed to curb coronavirus variant.
Now, I want to stress, one of the tricks they do in media when they're desperately trying to cover something up, it's burying the lead.
First, they don't include the context in the headline, and then, the context is actually weighed down in the middle of the article.
That way, if you do click it, and you read the first couple of paragraphs, you miss the important context.
The Hill reports President Biden said Monday that his administration was not recommending further restrictions on businesses or in-person gatherings to combat the coronavirus pandemic amid concerns about the new Omicron variant.
Now, Joe Biden said something very similarly last year.
No, we're not going to do lockdown.
No vaccine mandates.
And then what happened?
Lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
And boy, did the vaccine mandates go nuts.
Apparently now, Biden's administration is saying they're looking at vaccine mandates for even small businesses with less than 100 employees.
Of course, the Fifth Circuit Court said no to that, but we'll see what happens.
Speaking from the Roosevelt Room, Biden described vaccinations as the best possible tool to defeat the virus and any emerging variants.
He said his administration would outline a strategy to combat COVID-19 during the winter months later this week.
Quote, On Thursday, I'll be putting forward a detailed strategy outlining how we're going to fight COVID this winter, not with shutdowns or lockdowns, but with more widespread vaccinations, boosters, testing and more.
Biden later told reporters that lockdowns were off the table, quote, for now.
His administration weighs measures to respond to the Omicron variant, much about which remains unknown.
And here, buried right in the middle of the article, is, quote, if people are vaccinated and wear their mask, there is no need for the lockdown, Biden said.
Okay.
If people wear their mask and are vaccinated, there is no need for the lockdown.
Do you think people are going to go out and get three shots?
No, no, no, hold on.
Two shots, maybe.
They came out and said the vaccine, one shot then another shot.
Now they're coming out and saying, actually, we were wrong.
The Daily Beast says, we screwed up.
This really is a three-dose vaccine.
Global studies are showing that a third jab is not a booster.
It's an essential element of the vaccination.
And we shouldn't have given the first two doses so close together.
All right, look, I'll be honest.
I can respect science not getting it right.
That's what science does.
So science should be questioned.
Otherwise, it's not science.
If they come out and say, You look, this was rushed.
Operation Warp Speed was under Trump.
We were trying to get a handle on this, and here was our initial plan based on the data we had, and now we're like, maybe we should revise this.
I'm like, okay.
I suppose.
But that's neither here nor there.
Because ultimately, it just comes down to you talking to your doctor.
Seriously.
Some people, like the former drummer of The Offspring, Pete Parada, Gyan Barre Syndrome, he can't do it.
And that's, he shouldn't be discriminated against, because he can't, it's not fair.
He's tried, you know, he acts in good faith, and maybe you went to your doctor and for different reasons you were told yes or no.
This is about the lockdowns and the politics of it all, not what you and your doctor want to do.
Let me show you this tweet here.
at BOS loves Jesus tweets Michigan fans sending a clear message to Dr. Fauci and the experts
at the Who.
And there you go.
Packed into a stadium shoulder to shoulder and rushing the field all crammed together.
Alright.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
If this is what we're going to see, do you think there's going to be a lockdown?
Let's throw it back to Mr. Joe Biden.
If people are vaccinated and wear their masks, there is no need for the lockdown.
I just showed a screenshot, for those that are only listening, of probably tens of thousands of people, all shoulder-to-shoulder, rushing the field.
Doesn't seem like they're masked, and doesn't seem like many of these people have their booster shots, because boosters are new.
Many may get their booster shots.
I'm willing to bet many won't.
I'm willing to bet many of these people won't get their booster shots because, well, people are fed up.
I mean, look at what Bill Maher said.
Bill Maher, on his show, said, I got the vaccine, I took one for the team, and now you're telling me we gotta get more?
I'm not gonna do it.
That's what Bill Maher said.
Well, that's him personally.
He's allowed to have his opinion on what his decision is, but, you know, certainly I think it's between you and your medical practitioner, as I often say.
But people are going to say no.
They're going to say no to this.
In fact, the courts are going to say no to this.
Patrick Morrissey says a federal judge in Missouri has issued a preliminary injunction against the CMS vaccine mandate for 10 states.
While this is good news, the injunction does not yet cover West Virginia and our coalition of states.
We are awaiting word back from a Louisiana judge about our coalition.
Patrick Morrissey is a conservative, I believe West Virginia Attorney General, West Virginia AG.
Now, this is still good, but think about what this means.
Sure, Joe Biden might not be able to actually force people to get vaccinated because the courts are striking him down.
But then he can come out and say, you know, you got these courts, man.
They're saying we can't have vaccine mandates that save lives.
So we're going to have to issue these lockdowns.
Otherwise, people will die.
And Joe Biden doesn't necessarily have that power.
But you know all these blue states are going to do it.
You take a look at Florida and the southern states' COVID cases, and it's low.
So I'll tell you this, if you don't want to live under the boot, maybe that's where you should go.
But let's take a look at Biden's own policies.
I'm telling you, I believe there will be a lockdown, a hard lockdown, a serious one.
From the Week.
Originally, the title was Republicans Pounce.
I love how they do that on Joe Biden, but they changed it to Conservatives Cry Hypocrisy After Biden Bans Travel From Eight African Countries.
They say during the 2020 campaign, critics noted Biden accused former President Donald Trump of racism and xenophobia for enacting similar travel bans.
Joe Biden tweeted, Back in 2020, Trump further diminished the U.S.
in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban.
This new African ban is designed to make it harder for black and brown people to immigrate to the United States.
It's a disgrace, and we cannot let him succeed.
That's interesting.
Joe Biden's doing the same thing.
Biden says he delayed Africa travel ban over Omicron variant on advice of advisors led by Fauci.
And this one will be interesting, but let me read, because you may be saying, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
I thought you were saying it was hypocrisy.
Is he actually having the travel ban?
Well, let's take a look.
President Biden said on Friday he delayed implementation of a new ban on travel from South Africa, Southern Africa, on the advice of his medical advisors who are led by Fauci.
A reporter asked Biden why the emergency precaution will take effect Monday rather than immediately to contain the potentially more contagious Omicron version.
Why not do it now like other countries have done?
Why not do it now like other countries have done, the journalist asked Biden.
Biden said, because that was the recommendation coming from my medical team.
Fauci is Biden's chief medical advisor.
We don't know a lot about the variant, except that it is of great concern and seems to spread rapidly.
And I spent about half an hour this morning with my COVID team, led by Dr. Fauci, and that was the decision we made.
Okay.
So Joe Biden, the Biden administration announced they were going to have this ban.
But Fauci said, maybe don't do it.
All right, it should get interesting.
During the Trump years, when COVID was emerging, Trump wanted a travel ban.
Fauci said no.
Trump said- I believe it was Peter Navarro.
We interviewed him.
I believe he was the one who said that he told Trump, you have to do this, and Trump agreed with him.
And Fauci knew the whole time what was going on, and we now know this thanks to the leaked emails from Fauci.
But I'll point out, it is hypocritical for Joe Biden to announce a travel ban from Southern Africa and then, you know, have criticized—and have had criticized Trump over the same thing as racism.
Okay, fine.
Joe Biden's racist.
He's also now bowing down to Fauci, who was wrong before because we know that Trump's travel ban helped slow the spread.
Take a look at this from TimCast.com.
This is interesting.
We hosted Peter Navarro, senior White House official under the Trump administration.
He claimed, or he stated, and I believe this is fair to say that this is all backed up, Fauci and China are responsible for pandemic and $20 trillion GDP loss.
Fauci knew, Navarro told Timcast, if he had simply told us, we would have cracked down on China.
This was during our Members Only podcast.
This is a former White House official, a senior official under the Trump administration, and what he had stated was so important, we put out the clips and made an article about it at TimCast.com.
Navarro, promoting his new book, In Trump Time, had been discussing a lot about what was going on.
He was asked by Luke Rutkowski on the show what was happening in those initial days.
Quote, the boss is at the top of his game, Navarro recalled.
Everybody thinks he's a lock for re-election, there's exuberance about a trade deal, but I'm sitting in the audience in a cold sweat.
Navarro was talking about his book, we get it.
I'm wondering as I look up at the stage, what do these Chinese communists know that they're not telling us?
Could they be infected?
And if so, why are they sitting so close to the president?
And by the way, why did they shake my hand at the trade dinner last night?
But most importantly, I was thinking to myself, could this be a bioweapon that was designed to intentionally take out only the president, the only president who would ever step to the CCP?
And I don't know about all that.
That seems a little bit too much for me.
Lab leak?
Potentially, yes.
I think leaking from a lab makes a lot of sense.
Whether this was the virus developed by Fauci's funded gain-of-function research, we don't know.
We're missing a few of the puzzle pieces.
But even Jon Stewart said, probably leaked from a lab somewhere or another.
We have all of the pieces lining up, but the one in the middle is missing.
And I think a reasonable person at this point makes the assumption lab leak tends to make the most sense.
What was most interesting He says, the most important thing to understand here is what Fauci knew and didn't tell us.
Everybody in the room knew the virus came from Wuhan.
Everybody in the room knew that it had popped up near the Wuhan lab.
But what none of us knew then was that Fauci had funded that lab with taxpayer money, and worse, he engaged in a cover-up to make sure that we got off his scent.
This is important because if he had simply told the president, hey, look, I've got some bad news for you.
I think this is probably from the lab, maybe a weapon.
It's certainly genetically engineered.
You know what the difference would have been?
We would have cracked down on China and we would have gotten the original genome of the virus, you know?
What that would have allowed us to do is allow us to craft a true vaccine.
It's a lie of omission.
He should be in jail and out of government.
Now let me clear a few things up.
What he means by true vaccine is an attenuated virus vaccine, which is the old school version where you get the genome and then you can actually take weakened versions of the virus.
Without that, what he's basically saying is that we ended up with mRNA vaccines.
Now, in my opinion, I think, and I say this all the time, mRNA is a brilliant technology.
But it's not the same as attenuated virus.
Now, I don't know.
I mean, the virus is all over the place.
Certainly they could make it if they wanted to.
And I think it's called Novavax.
I'm not sure.
There is going to be a more traditional vaccine as opposed to the new mRNA stuff.
I don't completely agree with Peter Navarro's view on everything.
The point he's saying is, If Fauci came out and said we did fund this kind of, you know, SARS chimeric research in this lab, then the Trump administration would have acted as such it was and been much more serious and cracked down on China.
The most important thing here is not about whether we can definitively prove that it leaked from a lab.
I think it's a reasonable hypothesis for most people, but we are still missing that one little piece.
Again, I think the circumstantial evidence is pretty Intense in that regard, but I'm trying to make sure I'm very precise here because the point is that Fauci knew about the funding and it should come up.
Whether it actually was a lab leak or not, Fauci in that room with Navarro, with the president, with everyone should have said, you realize we've been funding this kind of thing in Wuhan and it's something we should be looking into.
He didn't.
He apparently told them, no travel ban, don't worry about it, and just kept it hush-hush.
In the leaked emails, apparently he emailed someone involved and said, could this be one of ours?
So yeah, I think Fauci is dishonest and a bad actor.
Let's take a look.
Let's take a look at where we're going, where we're going here.
The White House is telling federal agencies they can hold off on suspending or firing federal workers for not complying with the vaccine mandate until after the holidays, according to a memo obtained by ABC News.
Why?
If we're in a pandemic emergency that's been going on for nearly two years, two years, isn't that crazy?
Shouldn't they be like, there is no reason why we would not take this seriously?
Why are they saying, oh, it's a mandate because we have to have it or people will die, but, eh, you can chill for Christmas.
Doesn't sound like they're all that worried.
Doesn't seem like an emergency.
Now, maybe they're saying, we need federal staff through the holidays, it's a very serious time and we can't afford to lose them.
But then that would imply that's, what, January 2nd?
They're like, okay, now we'll be understaffed.
No, I don't know.
It doesn't make sense to me.
It sounds mostly like coercion.
Sounds mostly like what they're doing is pushing back the deadlines over and over again because they know they'll lose in the courts, but they need an excuse to try and force you to get it of your own choice.
It's manipulation.
They're saying, here's the deadline.
You better go get your vaccine.
And then people say, I better do it now.
And they do.
And then they go, oh, nevermind.
We removed it.
Oh, you're already vaccinated?
Well, you know, you're fine then.
Everyone else is fine too.
And as I've already showed, Pfizer has said, we screwed up, it really is a three-dose vaccine.
But let's talk about the politics of where we go, as a nation, as a country, as a world, when you have politicians lying, when you have politicians willing to exploit crises like these for power, for political gain, and when you have people unwilling to stand up.
Let's get into this.
Here you go.
Republican detractors are criticizing science, says Fauci.
Again?
He said it last time.
Let me see.
Okay, well, I'm not gonna do this survey for Forbes.
Something popped up.
Here they say.
It's on the website.
Some stupid thing popped up.
Dr. Fauci on GOP criticism.
unidentified
Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
And it's because a lot of people did not know what this would turn into.
In Australia, it started as, when you arrive in the country, we need you to quarantine.
Hotels are not appropriate for this, so we've created a camp.
It's a camp where you will be forced to go, you can't leave, and you will be under armed guard.
After two weeks, you're free to leave.
Now, they're saying it's an international rival bungalow.
The point I made here, in greater context, was it's only a matter of time.
Before they show up to someone's house and say, you are COVID positive and have to come to the camp.
It's only a matter of time before they say, your protest against the camps and the lockdown was a super spreader event.
And because you're all now suspected of having COVID, you need to come to that camp.
I was told by Quillette and Claire Lehman and people like this guy that I was crazy and wrong.
And look at this.
Oh, geez.
Look how absurd these people are.
Now we're here.
This is the Minister of the Northwest Territories.
He said we're grateful for the support of about 20 ADF personnel as well as army trucks to assist with the transfer of positive cases and close contacts.
Wake up world!
And I said, the people at Quillette are either idiots or they're a-holes.
I was criticized for saying exactly this would happen by the cowards.
When Claire Lehman, of Quillette, who's an absolute propagandist for the state of Australia, started criticizing me, saying it was being... it was... I was a blowhard and... Because I said, at some point they'll come, four Australians, and just bring them to this place.
It's not an international arrival bungalow.
I said I was crazy.
Then, it actually happened.
And what do we get?
Claire Lehman responded.
They're transferring people from remote indigenous communities who live hundreds of kilometers from any hospital.
unidentified
You clearly know nothing about Australia, so I suggest you stop tweeting about us like an ignorant blowhard.
Maybe she's just a propaganda for the state, in which case, she's very brave.
Standing up for the state, standing strong in the face of overwhelming evidence of the growing authoritarianism of Australia.
Yes.
So we actually have a statement from the minister that more than one thing has happened.
They've taken away the rights of individuals to leave their homes.
Let me see if I can pull up the right story here.
I believe maybe it is.
Here we go.
NT communities of Benjari and Rockwell placed into hard lockdown over COVID cases.
Let's start with this premise.
He says, yes, they are strong measures, but the threat to lives is extreme.
Under the old lockdown, residents could only leave their home for five reasons.
Essential shopping, essential work, providing or receiving care, exercise, and obtaining medical treatment.
Now that is a psychotic government decree.
When this happened in the United States, and we have the hard lockdowns, we call it a hard lockdown.
When they said, stay at home unless you need to leave.
Yeah, you can go outside, exercise, go to the parks, do all that stuff.
Some parks will be closed, but you can go out.
We're just saying it's a guideline.
Listen to this.
Gunnar has announced, Binjari and Rockhole residents now cannot leave their homes unless for medical reasons or an emergency.
That is to say, if you are in Binjari or Rockhole, if you are indigenous in this area, you can't buy food!
And here's how the game is played.
When Claire Lehman easily admitted they are transporting people.
And we have this story from abc.net.au.
Remember that guy, Josh Epps, who was like, oh, he's being hyperbolic, a reporter for ABC?
We have this story, which I've shown you before, that says, oh wait, I'm sorry, is this the one about the man escaping?
I'm sorry, this is the story about the person trying to escape from the quarantine.
Here we go, here we go, here's the story I was looking for.
Where'd they say?
Let me grab that number here.
They said 38 people.
Okay, let me just search for 38.
Authorities had identified 38 close contacts in Benjari, a number he said would likely rise, who were transported to Howard Springs on Sunday.
So, is this Claire Lehman saying they live hundreds of kilometers from any hospital?
Now, many people have pointed out that's not true.
There's a local hospital.
And then people like Claire Lehman said, oh, it's hardly a hospital.
They don't have anything to help anybody.
They got to go to the quarantine facility hundreds of kilometers away.
38 people were transported by the ADF.
That's literally what was reported.
I mean, I don't know what you want me to say when dude comes out and says, ADF personnel, assisting with the transfer of close contacts.
That's quite literally the Australian Defense Force pulling up and saying, hop in, we're taking you to a quarantine facility.
Now here's the point.
In response to my tweet at Claire Lehman, a ton of people started saying, but is it voluntary?
Is it voluntary?
And all of these Australian propagandists were like, what Tim Pool fails to mention is that, you know, the people need this help.
The funny thing is, when everyone asked if it was a voluntary transport to the quarantine facility, what people failed to realize is the politics and the enforcement behind what it means to be forced or coerced.
I think it distracts.
If the government says to you, you cannot leave your home even for food, and you're sitting in your home without food, and you're hungry, and you go outside, and they say, get back in your house, because the ADF, the military, has been deployed, and you're like, I need food, and they say, well, look, you can't leave your house.
I'll tell you what, if you'd so desire, you can hop in our truck, and we'll bring you to a quarantine facility, where we'll give you food in the morning.
Is that voluntary?
So maybe it's not that they're showing up with guns saying, get in the truck!
If that's what you'd expect.
But they're saying you can't leave your house for food.
If your only option then is to get into military transport with the ADF to go to a quarantine facility where people are trying to escape.
Look at this one.
Police find Victorian woman who escaped Howard Springs.
That's what's happening in Australia.
How about that?
I love this one.
Claire Lehman, she tweets, LOL, just discovered that there's a Howard Springs hashtag on Instagram and it's full of hot babes posing at what Tim Guest calls a concentration camp.
And lo and behold, there are some hot babes sunbathing and sitting there with their masks on in a quarantine camp.
How absolutely insane.
Now, many people have pointed out that this appears to be Olympians.
The Olympians, when they were turning, were put in these quarantine camps.
I believe it was Jack Murphy who pointed out, how strange.
If you search the hashtag about hot babes on Instagram, well, when you search the Howard Springs hashtag, you don't see any regular people.
It's just a bunch of hot babes and smiling faces.
How psychotic and deranged is that?
How creepy is that?
Here's a photo of the people happily being taken to the government camp.
Nothing can ever go wrong.
The indigenous people we're bringing here?
Well, they weren't allowed to leave their homes to get food, but they chose to come because it was better.
Or maybe they didn't choose, but we're helping them.
A video went viral showing indigenous leaders calling for international help.
They sound a little off the plot, to be completely honest, a little conspiratorial.
But there's videos of indigenous people in Australia being thrown into police wagons, screaming and fighting.
Claims that tribal leaders are saying they're experimenting on us and forcing vaccinations and forcing people into the camps.
So when they say, what's your evidence?
It's done by force.
I'll say, the minister of NT saying you can't leave your house to eat.
That's it.
It's remarkable.
So now I have these people like Jesse Singel.
He's a journalist.
He was like, Tim Pool should delete all his tweets.
Why?
What have I said?
I tweeted out the Guardian, dude.
Maybe Jesse Singel should actually read the news.
This guy's not all bad.
He's done some good work in the past.
But how absurd is it when OBVIOUSLY I'm being hyperbolic by saying CONCENTRATION CAMP?
It's about what COULD happen, not what IS.
And I said, months ago, how long until they go to Australians and take them, in Australia, to these camps, either with force or through coercion.
And I didn't even really get into that detail.
I said, look, in World War II, They didn't show up and say, everyone hop in the death car!
They said, everyone's got a Guinness for your own safety.
And everyone just did what they were told.
That's why we can't allow that.
The government shouldn't have the right to round people up and bring them to camps.
Now look, if there's like an apocalyptic event that's very obvious and people want to choose to go to these things, I get it.
Maybe that's just it.
People just blindly believe whatever the government tells them, so the government can whisper in their ear that the aliens have invaded, come to this facility, you'll love it, and then they do.
We've long known.
Don't get in the train car, because we know where it leads.
Maybe not now, but at some point.
At some point, why should I trust them?
Why would you blindly just believe the government when they're doing things like this?
Here's the important point.
Before they were taking these indigenous people to the camps, Australians in Australia.
I was told they were international arrival bungalows.
That's what Josh Zepp said.
International arrival bungalows.
Josh, I have a question for you.
Why would you need to take indigenous people, who are the least international arrival, least likely to, like the least literally international, like they were indigenous, you guys came during the colonial period, They're being taken to your international arrival bungalows.
So, um, you're just wrong.
You're agents of the state.
You have dropped to your knees to serve the ridiculous authoritarianism, and everybody in the U.S.
can see it for the most part.
I cannot believe that there are people still supporting Quillette in the U.S.
I'm sure there were many back when Quillette was libertarian.
But now they're just telling you, shut up and let the government lock... Let's believe for one second.
Let's say for one second that they're not forcing people in any way to the camps.
The minister came out and said, you can't leave your home to eat.
To eat.
Okay.
That's what's happening?
Sure.
Not authoritarianism.
And that's what Claire Lehman is supporting.
The government saying, no food for you.
It's nightmarish.
So take a look at what's happening in the U.S.
Joe Biden's probably going to come up with a lockdown excuse.
We shouldn't tolerate it.
Fortunately, we have the state system, and some states are doing better than others.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL, where we'll dive into this stuff in more in-depth.
Live show.
Thanks for hanging out and we'll see you all then.
Now, Jussie Smollett maintains it was not a hoax, but the police maintain it was, and basically everyone else maintains it was, because his story makes absolutely no sense.
Today, actor Justice Millett's criminal trial will begin, and boy did the political machine try to cover up for this man.
They initially had the charges.
There were no charges.
Then they were saying, oh, we're going to give him a slap on the wrist, and people freaked out, saying, are you kidding me?
This guy is accused of hiring his two buddies Bringing them to this location in Chicago, pointing at a surveillance camera, coming back several days later, having his friends stage a hate crime against him, for which he reported to the police, and the police allege it's because he wanted to increase his salary.
Now, here's the worst part about this is, I mean, I'm sure most of you know this, and we'll get into the details about the trial and what's happening now, but the entire media machine covered up for him.
We saw celebrities like Big Bang Theory, I think it was, saying, oh, we're so sorry, Jussie, and politicians came out.
They were so ready to use this.
But I'd like to thank them.
Because this may have been a major wake-up call and red pill moment for so many people.
To this day, there are many people who still live in the Matrix.
They have not taken the red pill, and I mean that not in the political sense, in the Matrix sense, like a reference to the movie.
And they still don't realize that after this story, after the Covington story, after Russiagate, you know, how many times does the media have to be wrong?
How many times do you have to be wrong before you just stop and say, okay, something isn't right here?
No, no, I know, I know.
You, for the most part, already know this.
That's why you're watching this video.
But maybe you're someone who watches my content and you've shared this video.
You've shared it with other people.
And now they're seeing my content for the first time.
Maybe many of them are like, I'm not gonna watch Tim Pool that far, right?
And this is the goal.
I have, look, my agenda in everything I produce when it comes to doing stories like this is literally just my feelings.
And that's it.
I always say I'm just a dude who's ranting into a camera on the internet.
And the thing is, when I started all of this, I had no intent of influencing politics.
I had no intent of influencing culture.
It was quite literally, I saw a story and I was like, I want to talk about that.
I want to say how I feel.
I want to express myself.
That was really it.
So, if at the end of the day you like Justice Millett, well, you're allowed to, you know, whatever.
I'm just gonna tell you what I think about this and what I, you know, think is right and what is wrong.
But in the end, I don't want anything from you.
I don't want any power over you.
I don't want any... That's really it.
I don't want to be in charge.
I don't want to... I'm not trying to influence within certain reason.
I mean, obviously, I'm trying to make my point and make my argument and hope people believe me when I, you know, and agree with me.
But in the end, I'm perfectly content with just being some dude in a room talking about this stuff that's going on.
And the reason I bring this up is, if you are someone who is just now experiencing, you know, just now watching my content, and I say this because considering the subject matter for a lot of people who don't know about the trial, don't know about Justice Meltz's hoax, or if you're someone who watches my content, you know all this stuff.
But, as I often say, share this video so we can help get people to understand what's going on.
I say all of that because I want you to see this, make your own conclusions, comment you think I'm wrong, but more importantly, stop just blindly following.
Think for yourself, be a leader, be in charge, and have power over yourself.
It sounds very self-helpy, doesn't it?
Well, you know, I'll tell you this.
I don't want the responsibility or the liability of telling you how to live your life.
And so I don't like how you get these authorities, you get the media, you get the manipulation, the actors, and everybody.
They get away with crimes, but they hold you to the flame.
No, I'm not all about that.
I'm not all about that.
Hopefully, when you watch stories like this, It'll help you understand that the machine has been lying to you.
And truth be told, they've lied to me a whole lot, and I also have done stories based on broken machine lies.
The Matrix will put out that narrative, and then there have been times where I've bought into it as well.
And it's a harsh reality, but I try to break through this stuff.
Now, this is a fairly mainstream story.
Most people understand that Justice Millett was full of it.
So here's what's happening.
The Wall Street Journal says actor Justice Smollett's criminal trial to begin after years
of delay.
They say Mr. Smollett in late January 2019 claimed two men assaulted him while yelling
racist, anti-gay and pro-Donald Trump slogans.
It was the most insane story any of us had ever heard, and I suppose he also alleges they hit him and tied a noose around his neck.
Investigators soon alleged that he had fabricated the event.
Okay.
We're gonna go back in time, because I'm not gonna assume everybody knows the context.
Those of you who do know the story will probably enjoy hearing it again.
Jussie Smollett claims that in the wee hours of the morning in Chicago, when the temperature was in the 20s, that he was going out for a Subway sandwich in an area where people don't live, for the most part.
He was by the famous Chicago clock.
It's like, I don't know, it's this structure on the ground with like, if you look at it from above, it's a clock.
But if you're walking past it, you'll be like, what is this thing?
Because, you know, it's huge.
It used to be a clock, now I don't think it is, but they call it the clock.
So I'm from Chicago.
I've been to this area.
He's there at like, you know, super early in the morning, like 2 or 3 a.m., getting a tuna sandwich or something from Subway, when he claims that two guys yelled at him like that he was the gay guy from Empire or something like that and yelled, this is MAGA country, splashed him with some kind of chemical substance, bleach I believe, and threw a noose around his neck before fleeing.
He then went home and called the police and the police showed up and he had this thin rope from a hardware store around his neck and I think there's video of it actually.
The police noted like when we got there it was still there around his neck.
The police later went back and investigated and I think they found like a hot sauce bottle that smelled like bleach or something.
Now that's his story, and it's insane.
I mean, for me, having lived in Chicago, we used to skate in the wee hours of the morning through winter, too, in this area, because there's no one there, ever.
So the idea that two Trump supporters would be in Chicago, I mean, maybe in the suburbs, but in the city, in a place where people, for the most part, aren't, in the wee hours of the morning, recognizing A D-list actor from the show Empire, which they've probably never seen, having bleach and a noose on them at the time and then going, got it.
They said the trial has... He's being tried for six counts of disorderly conduct for making false reports to the police.
The trial has been delayed due to events including having the charges dropped and refiled.
They're trying to cover up for this guy.
You need to understand this, man.
And again, I'm operating under the assumption that they're people who weren't watching three years ago, and I think that's fair to say.
They dropped the charges against him.
Take a look at what's going on with Alec Baldwin.
You know, I've been obsessing over this Alec Baldwin story because it makes me angry.
It drives me crazy.
Alec Baldwin was not supposed to be given this gun by the AD, Assistant Director.
They were all supposed to check the gun.
In the scene, multiple witnesses now say he wasn't supposed to draw the gun.
He wasn't supposed to pull the hammer.
It's a single-action revolver, meaning you have to.
And he wasn't supposed to pull the trigger, but most importantly, he wasn't supposed to even aim it at a person.
Even if he was going to draw the gun, pull the hammer, and pull the trigger, you never aim it at someone.
If it were anyone else, they would have been arrested on the spot.
But these propagandists...
Justin Millett's not the most famous, but he certainly was producing propaganda.
Get away with it.
And that's what drives me nuts.
They say the charges were dropped and refiled, and an investigation into how Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx handled the investigation, the COVID-19 pandemic, added to the delays.
Now that I can understand.
A court official said the trial will begin with jury selection and could be completed within days.
I got a feeling it's going to be guilty on all counts, but boy do I look forward to watching that trial with legal insurrections coverage, because that will be a big one as well.
Mr. Smollett's lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Smollett's legal team has said the actor has been unfairly presupposed to be guilty.
Truth be told, that's a fair assessment.
He is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But you know, look, I gotta be honest with you.
While I believe he should be afforded all due process rights, 5th 6th, all that good stuff, amendments, and be allowed to have this trial, and should be presumed innocent, There comes a point where we must approach these things and potentially make judgments due to the ad absurdum nature of the arguments.
I don't know if that's a... I believe that's the right Latin phrase, but the point is, it is to the point of absurdity that this man's story would grant him any presumed innocence.
Now he deserves it.
He does.
It's a right.
So I'll say this.
The courts should presume him innocent.
Absolutely.
100%.
But I think... I think the absurdity of it just reaches a certain level.
I'm sorry.
And it's tough.
You know, you think about a lot of cases like Kyle Rittenhouse, for example, or George Zimmerman, and a lot of people would have said the evidence presented so far is to the point of absurdity that we're not going to accept it.
And that's their opinion, because absurdity really is a person's personal perspective, I suppose.
But I think a reasonable person at this point can conclude, Jussie Smollett staged a hate crime hoax.
Based on everything we've seen, the charges filed, the claims made in the story are just so insane that two Trump supporters recognized a D-list actor and yelled, this is MAGA country?
Chicago is not MAGA country.
And two Trump supporters being in Chicago at 3 a.m.
in this desolate area of, it's just north of downtown, I think.
It's like basically downtown.
And then seeing him, all of that coming together, Okay, sorry.
I would not be willing to believe that.
I gotta be honest.
I am a non-theistic individual.
I do believe in God, but I don't believe in the theistic religions.
But you come to me and say that you believe Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior.
I am absolutely more willing to believe that.
I'm not a Christian, by the way, but I'd be more willing to believe that because of the nature of faith, spirituality, philosophy, and the strange Occurrences that happen all the time in our lives.
So much so that people say we must be living in a simulation.
Or perhaps a construct by a higher power.
So I'll tell you this.
It is less absurd to me to believe in a theistic religion than it would be to believe this story from this guy.
Now, of course, I know there's probably a lot of religious and Christian individuals who are saying, well, obviously.
But my point is trying to, what I'm trying to get at is not to be offensive.
I'm trying to say that for me as an individual who doesn't have that belief, I can certainly understand and have these philosophical conversations and understand and come to recognize and I'd be more willing to believe this.
My point is, There is a leap of faith you make when it comes to, you know, religion and things like that.
There is no leap of faith I believe a reasonable person could make to believe this story.
Trigger all the insane leftists who are like, you know, Tim is, you know, a Christian, blah blah blah, whatever.
Look.
Sorry.
I can ask questions about the nature of the universe, and I can certainly entertain the astronomical probability that we live in such a strange reality that this really did happen, and Jussie Smollett certainly is telling the truth.
I'm just saying I'd be more inclined to believe a faith-based religion on faith than I would be to believe the word of this guy, to be fair.
Maybe it's not fair.
I don't know.
I'm just saying.
I am not a religious person, but I've heard better arguments and better stories from people trying to convince me of whatever religion than this guy's making up.
Mr. Smollett's legal team has said the actor has been unfairly presupposed guilty.
Smollett has maintained the truth of his account of the assault.
Smollett's attorney in 2019 said Mr. Smollett had paid the alleged attackers for personal training not to perpetrate an assault against them.
His career was hobbled by the charges.
His character was removed from the television drama Empire.
Police charged Smollett in February 2019 with felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report.
Investigators determined that the alleged attackers were brothers who knew Mr. Smollett, one of them having appeared on Empire.
The city of Chicago, citing extensive costs associated with investigating allegedly fake crime, has also brought a civil case against Smollett.
The civil case was moved from local court to federal district court in late 2019 because Mr. Smollett is a resident of California, not Illinois.
The civil litigation has been stayed pending the criminal trial, according to a Chicago official.
According to the criminal complaint, Mr. Smollett, while filming Empire in Chicago, was upset over his pay and recruited Abimbola Osundaira, who had worked and socialized with the Smollett, to stage an attack.
Mr. Smollett planned the attack in Mr. Osundaira's apartment with him and his brother.
Olabinjo, who had been recruited to join him in the scheme.
According to prosecutors, days later, Smollett took the brothers to where the staged attack would take place and pointed out to the brothers the location of a surveillance camera, which he thought would capture the attack.
Prosecutors said in court filings, he also gave one of the brothers a $100 bill to buy supplies for the assault, they said.
The day before the attack, the two brothers split a $3,500 check given them by the defendant and deposited into their bank accounts, prosecutors allege.
This is interesting.
Are we now to be happy about the surveillance cameras all over Chicago because this guy's an idiot who pointed at it and they saw him do it?
You know, I was at the casino over the weekend, because we did Family Thanksgiving on the weekend.
I was there on Thanksgiving.
It was fantastic, by the way.
Really low table minimums.
Nobody was there.
It was super chill.
Because we did our Family Thanksgiving over the weekend, so everyone could get together, you know.
I don't know.
Some of you probably do something similar.
And while I was there, I noticed there's cameras everywhere, if you've ever been to a casino.
And I was thinking about, honestly, how safe I felt.
With there being like a thousand cameras in this one area and them being able to see me in every space.
Why?
Well, I have no intent of doing anything wrong.
I'm at the casino to, you know, put a hundred bucks or so down and just play some cheap table games for fun to pass the time.
You know, it's fun to get that draw, and you're like, yeah, and you're cheering.
And then, I don't know if you guys saw my Instagram, I won a massive jackpot, so that was really, really fun.
It was a good day.
It was fun.
I think that was, I don't know if that was, I think that was on Thursday.
Maybe not.
No, no, no.
I don't think so.
Anyway, that was Saturday.
I posted it.
But anyway, I digress.
I thought about how, you know, when I won this jackpot, People there are like, hey man, you gotta be careful because you won a jackpot.
Now people are gonna be staring at you and stuff.
And I'm like, there are so many cameras here.
I'm not worried at all.
I'm not doing anything wrong.
I'm here to just have fun, play the games, enjoy myself, have a drink.
And if somebody wants to do something untoward, we'll find out who did it.
I thought it was interesting because it comes to the surveillance argument we have here.
There are surveillance cameras all over Chicago.
The problem with the difference between the casino and the real world and surveillance is that when you're in a casino, you're choosing to go into an establishment that is bound by certain rules.
Obviously, you still have certain laws you can't break, but for the most part, You know, you don't got to worry about that.
I mean, certainly don't do anything illegal.
What I mean is, when I'm in a casino, I'm there to have a good time.
And if someone wants to commit a crime, it'll be on camera.
When I'm out in public in the real world, I have to navigate these spaces for living reasons, right?
And the issue is that You're always breaking the law.
You're always.
There's that book about how the average person commits three felonies a day, and how if they really want to, they can accuse you.
And this is the problem with the surveillance state.
It's one thing to be in a private establishment, and they can kick you out.
That's it.
Kick you out, ban you from the premises.
Oh no, now I can't go to a casino.
It's another thing when you're crossing the street, and they claim you jaywalked, and then all of a sudden you get a ticket in the mail.
It's when they say, we got you on video at this location at this time, and you get falsely accused of something.
These are the things that negatively impact your life across the board.
It's another thing that when we need to change as a community, as a group of people, certain laws and certain rules, you can't even know why you'd want to do that.
It's an argument that was presented to me by Moxie Marlinspike, a well-known hacker.
And he said, one of the issues of why the surveillance state is so bad is that, let's say, you know, marijuana laws, for instance.
Across the country, marijuana is being legalized recreationally.
How would we know we wanted to make this legal or decriminalized if no one could touch it because there was a camera on every street corner, in every room, and they came after you with any infraction?
That's where we're headed with the mass surveillance state.
That's where we're headed with the authoritarianism.
You'll never even be able to try something.
Now, I'm not a fan of, you know, drugs or anything like that, and I don't think, to be completely honest, I don't think people should be, you know, doing that kind of stuff, but it's not for me to tell you how to live your life.
They're going to say that, you know, he wrote this check.
After 2 a.m.
on January 29th, the brothers staged the attack on Mr. Smollett before flagging down a taxi and being dropped off at home.
It's insane to me that they thought they could walk up to a camera, point it out, come back later, and the police would not be able to just pull up the footage.
Which they did.
And they saw them there.
Some people, man.
And you know, this is the challenge of it, because I'm glad the camera was there.
He thought that he would get attacked, and then they'd be like, look at the surveillance footage, and they'd be in the press, like, here's surveillance footage of the attack happening, this proves it.
Instead, the surveillance footage just shows him planning the attack.
I suppose when you got morons for criminals.
Over the course of two weeks, the city detailed over two dozen officers and detectives to investigate the high-profile event, incurring more than $130,000 in overtime fees.
I just want to stress the point again.
I hope stories like this wake people up.
I'm not telling you who to vote for.
I don't like the Republicans.
I like like three of them.
Rand Paul's cool.
That's about it.
A couple others maybe.
I don't like the Republican Party.
I don't know who does.
The Mises Caucus is pretty good, but I don't know if they have the strength.
The Democrats are trash.
I hate them.
I hate the political establishment.
I would say that's probably a better way to put it.
And I don't like the Democrats all that much.
I think they're centralized.
The political establishment has centralized, coalesced around the Democratic Party.
I just want people to be aware of what's going on.
I want you to be free and independent.
I want you to break out of the Matrix, break out of the Borg, and look at this stuff and just come on, man.
Let me show you something else.
From Variety, Alec Baldwin hires a Los Angeles attorney for rust civil suits.
If it were you, and you were on a movie set, and a person who's not supposed to be handling a weapon walked up to you and said, here's a gun.
And you said, okay.
And you didn't check it.
And it was a single action revolver.
That means you can't just pull the trigger.
You gotta pull the hammer back, then pull the trigger.
If you were handed this gun by a random person, who is not supposed to be holding these weapons, and then for no reason, because the scene doesn't call for it, you decide, I'm gonna pull this weapon.
Point it at the camera operator.
I'm going to pull the hammer back and pull the trigger, ejecting a bullet, killing this woman.
You would have been arrested on the spot.
The police would have come in.
They'd have said, what happened?
Pulled a gun, shot somebody.
The script supervisor and an electrician have already stated he wasn't supposed to have been given the gun by this guy.
He wasn't supposed to have aimed it and pulled the trigger.
Whenever he's handed a gun, you're supposed to check it.
I think, for any regular person, they'd be like, it's clear-cut homicide.
Clear-cut.
We've got witness statements stating, at the very least, you're being arrested on charges of suspicion of, you know, some crime, homicide.
I don't know what they would actually say.
They'd probably just bring him in, question him.
After questioning the witness, their preliminary investigation should have warranted an arrest.
I think so.
When Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial, the defense asked the detectives, you arrested and charged Kyle Rittenhouse with these charges immediately.
And the detective said, yes.
When there is a homicide and everyone sees it, it is not unusual to make an arrest with charges immediately and then investigate.
Okay.
I mean, it makes sense to me, right?
Kyle Rittenhouse was involved in shooting several people.
Two of them died.
And the police said, We're gonna arrest him and book him.
Why?
We don't want him fleeing!
And so then they have the question of bail or remand, and Rittenhouse for 87 days was locked up, horrifying, considering he was acting in self-defense.
But this is why they do it.
And there's a certain degree to which we're like, if you're a violent criminal, you get remanded.
Or if you are accused of a violent crime, you're presumed innocent, and there is the challenge.
Is the safety of the community more important than the presumed innocence?
It's tough.
It is.
There are certain levels where we have to tolerate, you know, we're going to remand you.
But I'll tell you this.
I think if we do remand any criminal, they should be given very, very nice quarters.
I believe that, you know, I was thinking about this.
If you are accused of any crime and we're going to say we'll not let you out, you should be given Average furnishings.
You should be given a TV.
You should be given the internet.
You should be given internet access.
You should be given full phone privileges and be like, look, you're presumed innocent.
So we're going to accommodate you very, very well, but we're not going to let you out due to the potential risk based on these factors.
But considering you are presumed innocent, then we should give you full accommodations like a hotel room.
And maybe that, maybe they should be placed in some kind of, you know, jail, which is more akin to a hotel room because of the presumption of innocence.
That being said, Alec Baldwin wasn't even arrested.
He's in civil suit.
Not even arrested, not even charged.
And I doubt he will be.
I'm surprised Justice Smollett was, but I'll tell you this.
Justice Smollett went up against the city, insulted the police.
And for that, they were like, mm-mm.
Baldwin was on a movie set.
They don't care.
Pay restitution to the family of some sort and we don't care.
Special rules, man, special rules.
But I'll stress and I'll wrap it up with that final point.
You know, I was talking about this on a member segment last week before we went off for the holidays, and I said, you know, we should get rid of the prison system.
It doesn't work.
I'm not saying let out all the prisoners.
I'm not saying, you know, I was like, abolish prisons.
That doesn't mean the legal system, and that doesn't mean release anybody.
Everybody.
I'm saying it means we need to figure out a different way of handling this.
It doesn't work.
Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been in jail for 87 days.
He was presumed innocent.
But it was a very serious accusation.
Okay.
Get him a nice comfy bed, queen size, four pillows, HDTV, get him a computer to do work and be online, and freely talk to whoever he wants, and talk to everyone, because he is presumed innocent.
If the concern is the violent crime, but you've not proven guilt, you can't take away someone's ability to live.
I think that's a fair compromise.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Let me know what you think.
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.
This story is particularly tragic.
I don't think it is the most prominent news story right now.
It's not, but I do think it's one of the most important.
Sure, there's stories about Jussie Smollett and Jack Dorsey, and we'll get into that stuff, and if you're listening to the podcast, you probably already heard it.
This is a story about a father who was going to pick up his son.
There was a court-ordered arrangement between the two parents of the child.
When he went to the house, the mother was withholding the child from him.
The man was, he was aggressive.
His name was Chad Reed.
But he wasn't violent in any way.
He told the man, I will subpoena you.
I will subpoena them.
All of a sudden, the woman's new significant other comes out with a 9mm carbine.
It appears to be a 9mm based on the magazine size, but it was a, I believe it was a 9mm carbine.
It's basically a rifle.
It fires a smaller caliber round.
I know, gun nuts, give me the proper definition and break it all down in the comment section.
But the point is, he comes out with a gun.
Immediately, this guy Chad Reed, who's there to pick up his son legally, gets up in the face of this other guy whose name is Kyle.
Starts saying things like, do it, do it, or whatever.
The guy with the gun then fires into the ground.
The father, Chad Reed, then grabs the gun.
They struggle, spin around, separate by what appears to be about five to seven feet.
The man Kyle then puts two rounds into the father who was there to pick up his son, killing him.
He drops to the ground.
As Andrew Branca says, it appears that it was a hit to his central nervous system, which took him out, dropped him almost immediately, and then he did die.
Now there's a lot of arguments over who is right in this context.
I look at this and I immediately say this.
There's a lot of questions about justified use of self-defense.
Someone coming on your property.
You, this guy, probably not involved in whatever legal dispute they had.
Or, you know, whoever's property it is.
I'm gonna tell you this.
You're a father.
And you have a custody arrangement for your child, your son.
And you go to pick him up and your ex, the child's mother, be it your wife or otherwise, refuses.
I mean, is that not kidnapping?
Could the father now be acting in defense of his child who's being withheld from him?
I don't believe this father had any intent to cause any physical harm to anybody.
I believe that when this significant other came out with his gun, it was a direct threat to a father who was legally entitled to be there to get his son.
And he didn't raise his fists, he closed the distance between him and this guy.
Let's read this and break it down, but I'm totally on the side of the father who was there to pick up his child.
It's a crazy story.
It is.
But I think this is a good example of, as much as I believe in gun rights, I believe this is a story of how broken our child custody, you know, family court system is.
And maybe this dad could have just backed off and said, I'm calling the sheriff as soon as he came out with the gun, and the sheriff would have resolved it.
But there's a lot of questions here.
So let's get into the story.
Chad Reed shooting.
Evidence supports manslaughter, not justification.
Neither self-defense, defensive dwelling, nor defensive property appear to justify this shooting.
This is a really shocking story.
I believe it happened on November 10th.
The video has gone viral.
There's been a lot of people arguing that the boyfriend or whatever of the ex-wife or ex, you know, the mother of the child was justified in defending his property from a guy I don't think so.
I think they were withholding this man's child.
Anyway, let me read and then we'll break this down.
Branca says, as is so often in the case, there is unfortunately a lot of confusion about how to understand the use of force legal issues in this case with a great deal of misunderstanding of both relevant law and how it should reasonably apply to the facts of the case.
So he says, First, a quick overview of the facts of the Chad Reed shooting.
It appears that Reed was upset because his ex-wife at the Carruth home had failed to deliver their son, Reed, Now I'm going to pause here.
his scheduled custody transfer.
While in the front yard and later on the front porch of the Carruth home, Reed shouted and
postured angrily at his ex-wife.
Carruth ordered the angry Reed off his property, a command with which Reed declined to comply.
In the video, which is all over the internet, Chad Reed the father never threatens anybody.
He says, I'm going to take you to court.
I believe that is the correct and appropriate statement.
The father is there to pick up his son.
It is his legal right.
In fact, a court ordered to do so.
The wife says, he's not here because I want to be with him.
The father says, I will take you to court and you to court and you to court.
And then the other guy comes out with his carbine and says, get off my property.
To me, at this point, it's really interesting.
The father is supposed to be there, and they're not giving him his son, and he's worried about his son.
He never threatened anybody.
Could it be, and I think it's fair to say, if you then come out with a gun and say, get off my property, you are kidnapping the man's child.
For which the father just gets in his face and closes the distance.
Potentially to reduce the threat that the firearm could pose.
Then the other guy fires into the ground.
Now he's directly firing at you!
So then I believe Chad Reed is justified in trying to stop the threat as his son is being withheld from him and he needs to- I'll put it this way.
If your kid is in some random guy's house, and you're like, giving my son, I think you're justified to defend your child's life by stopping this stranger from having your kid.
Now, the mother has custody too, but she was supposed to turn it over, so she's violating a court order.
It gets interesting, let's read more.
Karuth entered his home and emerged a moment later back on the front porch carrying a carbine, a pistol-caliber long gun, presumably to attempt to compel Reid to comply with his command to leave his property.
At this point, in direct defiance of the court order the father has, threatening him by pulling out this gun.
Here's where it gets challenging.
I believe you have a right to keep and bear arms.
And I do not believe by the simple act of having a gun, you are threatening anybody.
I don't agree with that.
If we have a right to keep and bear arms, I can be on my property holding a gun.
I can say whatever I want.
Unless I say, I will do X, there is no threat.
If you brandish the weapon, okay, now there's a threat.
But here's the challenge, like I said, as much as I can respect that, if you are committing a crime or blocking someone from their child, and you pull out a gun, now you're getting into murky territory because you have pulled out a weapon which expresses, you will not give this man his child by threat of force.
Not a threat of this man's life, but you're saying, I am willing to use this force, I have it here, and you will not see your child.
Now you're asking for trouble.
To step between a man and his son with a gun?
Don't be surprised when he closes the distance.
And I'll tell you this, the fact the father only closed the distance and got in his face is surprising to me, because...
I mean, now you're getting crazy.
The appearance of the carbine instead escalated the confrontation, with Reid jumping up onto the front of the porch, leading the two men to chest bump each other.
Reid then reached for the carbine, and appears to have used the leverage of the long gun to sling Carruth several feet from his own porch.
Now, I gotta stop.
What Branka mentions later, but didn't point out in here, before there was a sling and separation, Carruth fired the gun into the ground.
He fires it!
Now, if you're a dad, and your child is being withheld from you, and a guy pulls out a gun, and you get his face, granted, the dad did say, I dare you, mother effer, use it, or something like that.
Well, now you're getting provocation, right?
Granted.
Murky, right?
Let me know what you think in the comments, because this is, you know, this is tricky.
But then firing into the ground, I mean, that's not a warning shot.
That's just you struggling, and then boom!
Could have hit him in the leg and the foot.
That's a direct attack.
Now I feel like the dad.
Grabbing it?
Maybe makes sense.
As Kruth came back to a, uh, so they fight over the gun.
It slings Kruth several feet off his own porch.
As Kruth came to a backpedaling stop some 10 feet or so from the porch and from Reid.
Okay, so 10 feet.
He raised his carbine, fires two shots into Reid, dropping him like a sack of potatoes.
Presumably the result of a hit on his central nervous system and would succumb to the gunshot wounds.
I'll start by saying up front, this is Branko, that this could very well have been a lawful use of deadly force by Carruth, but also that I can't make that justified call based solely on the two cell phone videos that we have been circulating, that have been circulating.
So I'll jump down.
There's some clips.
There's nothing graphic in any of these images.
He says, for it to be justified, it has to be defense of persons, self-defense or defense of others, defense of highly defensible property, the home.
But Texas is interesting.
In Texas, you can use deadly force to protect mere personal property.
Wow, Texas.
Yikes.
I mean...
I get it.
I do.
Because, you know, the issue I take with this idea in many states where they're like, if someone's trying to steal your phone, you can't kill them.
I'm like, dude, if someone threatens me and says, give me your phone, I don't know whether they're willing to escalate to deadly force to get it.
The moment they make a felony attack on you, Or an attempt to destroy or take your property.
They're committing an act of violence and I should not be in the weakened position of, maybe they'll kill me, maybe they won't.
No, no, no, no.
You attack me?
Let me tell you guys something.
Someone could shove you.
Shove you.
No intent to kill.
No intent to maim or cause great bodily harm.
And you can stumble back, trip on a rock, bang your head on a curb, and die.
It happens.
I should not be put in a position where I have a risk of death to myself and have to justify it in a courtroom.
Look, all he did was shove you and you shot him.
Yeah, but what if I would have slipped and fell and hit my head?
What if he would have done it again?
Why do I have to let someone attack me?
That's Texas.
In which case, when the dad grabbed the gun and threw the dude from his own porch, Maybe the dude had a right to be like, I will not accept that this guy is attacking me on my property.
So he shoots him.
I still side with the dad here.
The guy who was there for his son.
And why?
Because his son was being kept from him.
If you think that you're going to hold a man's child and then be like, get off my property and brandish a gun, and that dad's not going to be like, how dare you?
I will absolutely stop you to make sure I get my child.
See, this is the issue here that I think needs to play into this, that, you know, Branca's legal analysis doesn't necessarily cover the human element here.
A father having his son taken from him.
The child's mother saying, I'm not giving him to you per court order because I want to see him.
You're kidnapping.
You kidnap a kid, don't be surprised if the dad tries to stop you.
And the dad's not the one who pulled out the gun.
Branca says, I don't see any evidence in these two videos of Carruth being justified in the shooting death of Reed under any of those three legal justifications.
So he gets into defensive persons or others.
Now the interesting thing here, I don't agree with, but I think Branca knows the law better than I do, so let's break this down.
You've got the guy on his own porch.
And someone gets in his face.
They struggle.
You fire a round into the ground.
I mean, look, he's on your property.
He's in your face.
And this guy might be like, I don't know what their beef is.
The guy and the wife, I don't know their court order.
I don't know where the kid is.
I don't know anything about it.
Right?
So you come into my property, because someone's here, get in my face, threaten me, I told you to get off my property.
Now, you are threatening me up in my personal space, and, you know, in Texas, you have a right to defend your home.
I don't agree that the guy wasn't defending his home.
The issue is, Once they separated by about 10 feet, when I saw that video, I was like, that was the moment.
You get in my face, you threaten me on my own property, don't be surprised.
So what Branca points out, when it comes to defensive himself or the defensive property, as soon as Chad Reed, the father, bumps Chasten and starts yelling at him, threatening him, he could have stepped back and then shot him.
That would have been like, this guy was in my grill threatening me on my own property.
But when Caruth gained control of the situation, separated each other by about 10 feet, and then, pop pop, I was like, whoa.
There's no evidence there was an imminent threat to him at that point.
Like he had already secured his position.
This is a challenging question for parents' parental rights, father's rights, use of force.
Is this guy Kyle Caruth justified in shooting the dad because he was just attacked?
I gotta say, man, if you are now on my property, standing at my door, you have thrown me from my own property, children are inside, there's some tough questions.
Am I gonna let this guy now gain entry to this building?
Am I gonna say this guy's already attacked me on my own property, I don't know what his deal is, he now has the ability to enter the property, or do I stop the threat now?
It's a tough question.
I gotta be honest, I don't know, it's a tough, I'm ultimately gonna side with the dad because this guy was, this guy Caruth was acting as like a barrier between him and his son.
And they're claiming his kid wasn't there.
To escalate immediately in that regard, I think, was wrong.
There may be context we don't know about.
Chad Reed may have been violent with this guy Kyle in the past, or who knows?
And the guy Kyle might have been like, if he walks in this house, he's gonna cause a problem, I gotta protect my property.
Here's why I ultimately think we need to consider.
Defensive property.
Defensible property is home.
And self-defense and defense of others don't apply.
This guy, I believe, should actually get some kind of manslaughter maybe, but I think it should be maybe a little bit more serious than that.
And I'll tell you why.
Now again, I'm not one to indict and play that role for the state or anything like that.
I probably would say not guilty even if I was on the jury.
But, that being said, I know a lot of people, you know, call it hypocritical or whatever.
I just don't want to be the judge.
Or the jury.
But I'll give you my opinion.
In the video, the guy, uh, Caruth, who shoots the dad, is thrown from his own porch.
He then aims the carbine at Reid, and fires.
No chicken wing.
Arm down, right?
The thing is, he's now firing a 9mm carbine, a carbine, carbine whatever, into his own home!
So if it was defense of others, this guy's violating the fourth rule.
Know what you're pointing at, what your target is, and what's beyond it.
What was beyond it?
A window with children!
In the house!
Now that could be reckless endangerment.
I don't know, maybe he was using 9mm hollow points in that and one of the reasons why they dropped this guy very, very quickly.
I don't think you're going to be able to claim defense of others, defense of property, and personal property when you were possibly damaging your own property, shooting into your own house where there were other people.
Because with Kyle Rittenhouse, when he was firing on Rosenbaum, who's charging at him, they tried getting him on reckless endangerment of Richie McGinnis.
But Richie chose to be there.
If this guy was acting in self-defense, then you can't say he was acting recklessly, at least per Wisconsin.
This is Texas.
It's different.
He could still be considered defending his house and his property by trying to stop a guy from entering it.
Sure, the bolts may damage the door or the walls or whatever, but he was trying to stop this guy maybe from causing serious damage to his home and potentially getting access to other people or harming them.
He is, however, standing in defiance of a court order.
Yeah, this is a tough one, isn't it?
How do you call it?
Actually, I mean, you guys should be commenting already, telling me, you know, what you think, because, man, you got a dad who never threatened anybody, who's there on a court order, and this other guy blocking him from following through on what he was told he has to do, pick up his kid at 3.15.
The guy now is aiding the mother who is in violation of a court order.
When it came to Kyle Rittenhouse, they said, on the left, It can't be self-defense because Kyle couldn't legally have the gun, and thus, if you are in the commission of a crime, you can't claim self-defense if someone loses their life or they attack you or something.
Now, in some circumstances, I believe that's true.
That wasn't true with the Kyle Rittenhouse case, even with the gun charge.
However, it turns out the gun charge didn't apply, and thus, the argument was stupid anyway.
In this regard, though, you have the guy, Caruth, on his porch.
A bedding.
A mother who is violating a court order and could be argued to be kidnapping her son.
I know maybe people say, no it's not kidnapping because she wasn't taking the kid anywhere.
But the kid wasn't there.
The father, Chad Reed, was going to pick up his son.
His son was not at this house.
The wife said, or the mother says, he's not here.
And the dad says, why not?
She said, I wanted to see him.
Kidnapping maybe?
Now all of a sudden this guy comes out with a gun and says, get off my property.
He is now abetting a woman who is committing a crime.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
Let's put it this way.
A guy's in a bank.
And he's just robbed it.
He's stolen a bunch of cash.
And let's say you're in West Virginia.
Conceal carry state.
Constitutional carry.
So you've got your gun with you.
And you walk into this bank.
And maybe the bank says, you know, no guns allowed.
Or maybe they don't say anything.
A lot of places, they have no signs on them about guns.
Alright.
So a guy robs the bank, and he's running out, and he's holding a bag, you don't know what it is, and the security guard grabs him.
So you pull out your gun, and you say to the security guard, let go of him!
Let go of him!
And the guard goes, no.
So then the guard gets in your face, and he says, back off.
You shoot the guard.
Do you think you'll get charged with abetting a bank robber?
Yes, you will.
Now, they might argue, you knew it was a security guard, what are you doing?
Maybe it was a plainclothes security guard.
Maybe it's not even a bank.
Maybe you're somewhere, and there is a mugger holding something, and he screams, you know, get this guy off me, get this guy off me.
And then you shoot him, and it turns out the guy who was on him was a plainclothes cop.
Someone who was supposed to be there, supposed to be stopping this guy, You'll probably get in trouble.
Now, truth be told, in that circumstance, maybe not so much, but probably, I think you would still get in trouble.
Now, in the Brenna Taylor case, Brenna Taylor's boyfriend did shoot a cop as he broke in, and he actually got, uh, the charges were dropped.
So maybe in the case of using a plainclothes cop, you know, trying to stop a mugger, and you help the mugger, they might say no.
But I think in certain circumstances, even if you don't know you're abetting a crime, you probably will still get charged, especially if you shoot and kill somebody.
Now, the dad's not an agent of the government, so it's not maybe so fair to say, you know, a cop or anything like that.
Plainclothes security, you know, trying to keep a low profile, maybe.
You've got a guy running after committing a crime, and actually there's some knowledge here.
There's important knowledge here.
Let's say you walk into a bank and someone is screaming, you know, this guy is robbing the place, and then you pull out your gun and say, I don't care, and then shoot and kill the guy who was screaming, stop this guy, he's robbing the place.
Maybe it's the bank manager or something.
You're probably gonna get charged for that.
Now ultimately what Branca, you know, breaks down is a really, really great analysis.
I don't want to read through his entire analysis.
I'm mostly talking about this because it was a viral video.
I saw it and I had a lot of opinions on it.
But he says, Castle Doctrine does one thing and one thing only.
It relieves the home defender of any otherwise existing generalized legal duty to retreat that might otherwise apply before the defender would be privileged to use defensive force.
That is, if the defender would have had a legal duty to retreat before acting in self-defense while standing on the middle of a public street, the defender is relieved of that duty.
It no longer applies if the defender is instead inside his home or with his curtilage of the home.
What a lot of commenters are saying is, The guy, Kyle, should have called in.
The woman, the mother, said, get in the house now.
Told the guy, Reid, come back with the police.
Apparently, Reid did already call the police.
I think that was important.
I probably should have brought that up earlier.
That's what people are saying.
Get in your house.
Close the door.
Say, get off my property.
If you come in, I will use force to stop you.
There are other people here, and whatever legal dispute you have with this woman, the police can resolve it.
Please call them now.
We don't want violence.
Instead, he comes out on his porch with a gun and says, get off my property, barring the man from his child.
Now, you can argue closing the door would do the same thing.
It's a tough call on this one.
The story came out, you know, last week.
The videos from the 10th, the incidents from the 10th or whatever.
Now, here's where it gets crazy, you know, and I'll wrap it up with this.
I don't know.
I had to talk about this story.
Apparently one of the kids has already said he blames the mother for the death of their father and has said if this guy Carruth is around they're gonna run away or he's gonna the kid will run away the oldest.
Branca says it looks like manslaughter not justified killing.
In conclusion based solely on these two videos I fail to see a justification for Carruth's shooting of Reed as lawful defense of either self or others property or highly defensible property.
Which would seem to leave Carruth with no justification at all for shooting Reed dead the dead.
An unjustified intentional killing of another is generally simply first-degree murder.
That murder offense can, however, be mitigated to a lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter if the killer is believed to have been subject to adequate provocation, such that the decision to kill was not made in cold blood.
And certainly, I would expect a reasonable jury to accept the narrative of Reed having adequately provoked Caruth on the facts of the case.
But he was saying, use it.
He was telling him, come on, mother-effer.
Still, a similar mitigation would occur under the legal doctrine of imperfect self-defense, also recognized by Texas courts, where the defender has a genuine but objectively unreasonable perception of the need to use deadly force.
Still, both of those merely mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter, not an acquittal.
So the attorney for Mrs. Reed, the new wife of the guy who was killed, you know, commented saying thanks for bringing his attention to it on the YouTube video for the Law of Self-Defense, Angel Branca.
He says prosecutors have essentially unlimited discretion on all these steps of the criminal justice process.
Now, question.
Why wasn't the guy arrested already?
He shot and killed the dude.
Arrest him, take a statement, start an investigation.
They didn't.
People are saying that this guy who shot has like a relative or somebody who's a judge, a local judge or something, so we'll see.
Mostly.
I thought this was important to talk about for two reasons.
Father's rights.
I think it's a big role here, and I think it should be considered.
I think we have to bring humanity to these courts and talk about compassion.
I understand the need to be very precise in the law.
I accept.
I accept.
But, come on, man.
You tell a man he will not see his child, and the worst he does is he chest bumps you?
When you pull a gun on him?
And then you kill him?
I'm sorry, man.
But I think the other issue to bring up here is it really is challenging.
The self-defense argument here.
You're on your own home and a guy comes and he's arguing about something.
Can you defend your home?
Considering the Arbery case, considering the Rittenhouse case, I thought it was great to bring this up and start that conversation.
