GOP Rep Warns Of Targeted ASSASSINATIONS Looming In New U.S. Civil War, Press Says Its ALREADY Here
GOP Rep Warns Of Targeted ASSASSINATIONS Looming In New U.S. Civil War, Press Says Its ALREADY Here. Republican Rep Adam Kinzinger says Civil War may be coming and it will be bad.
Democrats and Republicans are living in completely different realities and tribalizing rapidly. It's not a matter of supporting Trump or Biden or of who is correct.
Both parent factions view themselves as morally just and the abuse of power is escalating.
This year is going to get bad and we may see that corporate press is right, we are already in a new civil war
#CivilWar
#Democrats
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
But you know, I've been talking about this for several years.
We also have Justice Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice, saying that we may be facing a national crisis over hyperpolarization.
And I gotta tell you, man, Nothing exemplifies this better than the hashtag I'm still with her Hillary Clinton support on Twitter and the articles about why they were correct to call half the country deplorables and an article from Joe Walsh in Salon where he completely lies or at least is wrong about what's actually happening in this country claiming that the right in this country has become hyper polarized and radicalized
But the data shows that's not true.
And polling shows that independent voters are more likely to align with Republicans.
I think the data from Pew shows that hyperpolarization is happening mostly as an effect of the corporate press and the left in this country.
Which is why it's important to point out that the corporate press are coming out saying a civil war is coming.
They are riling up their cult-like base.
And it may result in something catastrophic.
Or, let's just be real, they might be right.
In fact, you know I think they are.
Whenever I talk about civil war, invariably I get these critics saying, oh here comes Tim, an accelerationist.
I had establishment left democrat personality types and activists saying that I was calling for acceleration, so by simply pointing out that I thought we were on track for a civil war.
So let me just make a few points before I read you this news.
In 2018, when I said I fear we're on track for a civil war in this country because of street violence, would you have believed me if I were to tell you that on January 6th there would be a ride at the Capitol, that people believe the election was stolen and wanted to shut down the electoral vote process?
Would you believe me if I said that Democrats and establishment uniparty Republicans would form a committee to spy on Americans and subpoena the former presidential administration, threatening to imprison them?
That's all happening.
Not to mention there have been prominent Trump supporters, or prominent to varying degrees, well-known activists, who have been killed.
Notably that guy up in Portland, Aaron Danielson, took two to the chest because an Antifa Black Lives Matter guy shot him.
Or how about the guy who showed up to the ICE facility and tried firebombing it?
You know, I say it this way.
I get people who come up to me and they say, where's that civil war you were talking about, Tim?
You talk about it so often.
Then I just spawned, on January 6th, several hundred to maybe a thousand Trump supporters went to the Capitol, for which there was a riot, fighting with police, where they stormed in the main tunnel entrance.
Now, you know the story.
Obviously, my position on January 6th is that it was not an insurrection, but it's certainly indicative of us getting close to one.
There was a deadly riot.
Deadly for the Trump supporters, mind you.
And a lot of people wandered in cluelessly because the police opened the doors.
That's all true.
But I'm not saying that was the sign of the start.
Certainly some in corporate press are.
Just another grain of sand in the heap.
While you or many others may not believe it was all that extreme, I certainly think it was very, very bad, it's just another grain of sand in that heap.
Now, for all those naysayers who told me I was wrong, here we are with Adam Kinzinger.
He's a Republican, but he's an anti-Trump Republican the Democrats seem to love.
He's on the January 6th committee, and he's warning now that he fears civil war is very possible, and he's warning now, as of today at noon, it's being reported, that he's warning of targeted assassinations.
I don't know where this goes or how it escalates.
All I can see is that when you read this article from Joe Walsh, you will truly understand why I believe there is no turning back and why I've been scared.
I've said bullish on civil war.
It doesn't mean I want it to happen.
It means I predict it's going to escalate.
I hope it doesn't.
I'd prefer to be bearish and see that market come down.
We don't want conflict.
We don't want China to win on the global stage.
This is where we're going.
But enough ranting.
Let me actually read for you what they're saying about this.
And then I'll show you the comments from Joe Walsh, supposedly a conservative.
But when you read what he's saying, you realize these people are primed for polarization and conflict.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member.
All of the work we do, our journalists reporting on the news, these videos, it is primarily funded by your memberships.
Your memberships keep the lights on, allow us to do more work, allow us to expand, and we're looking to build culture, TV shows, movies, very inspired by The Daily Wire and the things they're doing.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only podcasts from all of our shows, notably the Tim Cast IRL podcast, Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
We had Nick Cerci of FX's Justified on last night talking about his film Gosnell.
You really want to check that one out, but it's not for the faint-hearted.
It's very gruesome stuff.
But we really do appreciate your support, so don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
That really is the best way to help.
Let's read this story from Newsweek.
They report, if a civil war breaks out in the U.S., Representative Adam Kinzinger believes it won't be reminiscent of a 19th century civil war because it'll take the form of targeted assassinations, not against the state.
Once an unthinkable theory, growing political divisions have fueled speculation that a civil war could be looming.
While some see it as inevitable, others have pushed for people to resist the possibility.
And Kinzinger told The View on February 10th that it's not too far of a bridge to believe another civil war could happen in the U.S.
However, if it does occur, he warned that it wouldn't take the same shape as it did in 1861.
A man after my own heart in so many ways.
Now, certainly I am no fan of Kinzinger.
I believe the January 6th Committee is exacerbating the problem.
Certainly there are people who think that my conversations are exacerbating the problem.
Which is one of the reasons I believe it may be inevitable.
I'm not going to back down.
I want to call this stuff out.
I want to call out what I view as wrong.
I imagine so does Adam Kinzinger.
But I think he's abusing his authority and his power on the January 6th Committee.
So perhaps, if both principal factions view the other as the inherent evil that must be stopped, It's all but inevitable, isn't it?
Targeted assassinations, violence, that's what a 21st and 20th century civil war is.
We're identifying now by our race, by our ethnic group, we're separating ourselves, and we live in different realities.
He is oh so right.
He really is.
He really is.
And I gotta stress again, I'm gonna read for you this Joe Walsh article, so you can understand it, but I wanna give you this news first.
Kinzinger had previously stated, we have to recognize the possibility of a civil war.
Axios similarly reported what Newsweek said, but he had previously said that we would be naive not to believe it's possible.
And here we are.
We also have Ray Dalio.
Ray Dalio is, my understanding, he's a billionaire, founder of Bridgewater, the world's biggest hedge fund, and he's warning that moderates would lose seats while extremists and populists in both parties will gain them in the upcoming election.
Hopefully, but not certainly, we will get through this election with the election rules prevailing without a fight over them.
But Ray Dalio thinks we're headed for a civil war, and a shocking fact about new legislation shows why.
They're going to say a record-breaking 440-plus bills with provisions that restrict voting access were introduced in 49 states in 2021.
The right looks at what the left is doing with their security stripping, as it were, of voting in this country.
The left calls it voting rights.
The right calls it the removal of security, and both sides completely disagree.
Now I happen to agree that we need stricter rules on voting.
We need there to be security.
It should not be that you walk by a wishing well and flick in a coin without thinking twice.
There should be some responsibility involved.
But we should make sure people have access to voting.
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.
My opinion on these things is not relevant to the fact that you have two principal factions at odds with each other.
Which brings me to The Guardian.
January 4th, 2022.
The next U.S.
Civil War is already here, we just refuse to see it.
We're planning on having Stephen Marsh on Timcast IRL to talk all about this, because I think his perspective is important, whether we agree or not.
Seems like he's on the other side of things, is the way I see it, which would be an interesting conversation.
Why?
We disagree, yet principally, we agree a civil war is here.
He writes, the right has recognized the system is in collapse, and it has a plan.
Violence and solidarity with treasonous far-right factions.
Nobody wants what's coming, so nobody wants to see what's coming.
I agree, man.
On the eve of the First Civil War, the most intelligent, the most informed, the most dedicated people in the U.S.
could not see it coming.
Even when Confederate soldiers began their bombardment of Fort Sumter, nobody believed that conflict was inevitable.
The North was so unprepared for war they had no weapons.
In Washington in the winter of 1861, Henry Adams, the grandson of John Quincy Adams, declared that not one man in America wanted the Civil War or expected or intended it.
South Carolina Senator James Chestnut, who did more than most to bring on the advent of the catastrophe, promised to drink all the blood spilled in the entire conflict.
The common wisdom at the time was that he would have to drink not a thimble.
The United States today is once again headed for civil war, and once again, it cannot bear to face it.
The political problems are both structural and immediate, the crisis both long-standing and accelerating.
The American political system has become so overwhelmed by anger that even the most basic tasks of government are increasingly impossible.
The legal system grows less legitimate by the day.
Trust in government at all levels is in free fall, or like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower.
Right now, Elective sheriffs openly promote resistance to federal authority.
Right now, militias train and arm themselves in preparation for the fall of the republic.
Right now, doctrines of radical, unachievable, messianic freedom spread across the internet and talk radio and cable television in the malls.
The consequences of the breakdown of the American system is only now beginning to be felt.
January 6th wasn't a wake-up call, it was a rallying cry.
The Capitol Police have seen threats against members of Congress increase by 107%.
Fred Upton, Republican representative from Michigan, recently shared a message he had received.
I'm not going to read it, it's brutal.
Effectively a threat.
And it's not just politicians, but anyone involved in the running of the electoral system.
Death threats have become a standard aspect of the work life of the election supervisors.
Under such conditions, party politics have become mostly a distraction.
The parties and the people in the parties no longer matter much, one way or another.
Blaming one side or the other offers a perverse species of hope.
If only more moderate Republicans were in office.
If only bipartisanship could be restored to what it was.
Such hopes are not only reckless, but irresponsible.
The problem is not who is in power, but the structures of power.
The U.S.
has burned before the Vietnam War, civil rights protest, assassinations of JFK and MLK, Watergate.
All were national catastrophes, which remain in living memory.
But the U.S.
has never faced an institutional crisis quite like the one it's facing now.
Trust in the institutions was much higher before the 60s.
The Civil Rights Act had the broad support of both parties.
JFK's murder was mourned collectively as a national tragedy.
You could not make one of those statements today with any confidence.
Two things are happening at the same time.
Most of the American right have abandoned faith in government as such.
Their politics is, increasingly, the politics of the gun.
The American left is slower on the uptake, but they are starting to figure out the system which they gave the name of democracy is less deserving of the name every year.
I don't completely agree with his perspective.
It seems like he's very opposed to the right.
He talks about white supremacists are not a marginal force.
They're in the institutions!
I think it's patently absurd, to be completely honest, because most people don't hold those views, unless, of course, your definition of white supremacist is from the woke perspective.
But then again, we've seen critical race theory in all of our institutions.
In this, I agree with Stephen Marsh.
Am I saying his name wrong?
I want to make sure I get it right.
Stephen Marsh.
The right views the left as being inside these institutions.
The left views the far right, the white supremacists, as being in these institutions.
Thus.
It doesn't matter who's right.
And that's why, you know, I think it's silly.
I'm not arguing with this guy.
I mean, we'll debate those points.
But fundamentally, I agree with him.
Both sides think the other side has infiltrated and has taken over.
I think I can prove this guy wrong about the right.
I brought data with me in this segment.
But if all that matters at the end of the day are that two large groups of people blame each other, Well, then you're going to get conflict.
It doesn't matter who is right.
It matters that both sides refuse to be wrong.
The New York Times.
Is civil war coming to America?
Dispatches from Stephen Marsh.
How to stop them from Barbara F. Walter.
They talk about this, I believe it's Barbara Walter.
You've got three retired generals in the U.S.
saying there could be a breakdown in 2024.
You've got this CIA expert Saying the U.S.
is on track for a civil war.
And you know what?
I just love how many people refuse to acknowledge it and tell me I've been wrong for four years now.
The unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market, I suppose.
It's not that I believe it's... You know, in 2018 I said I thought we were on track for one because of the escalation, the hyperpolarization.
But I could be wrong.
Maybe it all stops here.
I don't know if I believe that at this point.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But I can tell you, man, here's a story from the Brookings Institute.
Is the U.S.
headed for civil war?
A 2021 national survey by John Zogby found a plurality of Americans, 46%, believed a future civil war was likely.
43, unlikely.
11, not sure.
Young people were more likely to believe, 53%, than older ones, 31.
What you need to understand, as the older generation Let's just say ages out, leaving the marketplace, leaving politics, younger people who are more likely to be polarized, or at the very least believe we're on track, will be taking their place.
That suggests to me that we're heading in that direction.
The latest news we have is Justice Sotomayor saying a partisan divide could affect the perception of the Supreme Court.
Great headline, CNN.
In reality, she said she was concerned the country might be in crisis because of polarization, and it would affect the court.
Saying the country might be in crisis because of polarization, that coming from a Supreme Court justice, I think, is much more... Well, I'll say you're burying the lead here.
But I think I can give you an example of An example of an article that really explains the severity and the extremity of what we're to see.
You may think, you may be hopeful, that this country can pull itself together.
I'm sorry I'm not that optimistic, but hold on.
I'm not pessimistic in terms of our prospects as Americans as to what the future holds.
I believe liberty and freedom will win.
I just believe we may be headed for some very serious conflict, but ultimately, the night is always darkest before the dawn.
And even if there is a civil war or conflict, I believe freedom will win out, as it often does.
Joe Walsh on what the left doesn't get.
Trump world would happily burn this country to the ground.
Wait till you see, till you hear, what this man has to say about the right in this country, and then maybe you'll understand.
Walsh writes, or I'm sorry, this is Chauncey DeVega, Joe Walsh, talking, I believe, talking with Joe Walsh.
The Republican Party's assault on American democracy is an imminent existential crisis.
The disaster was long in the making.
For at least five decades, the Republican Party and the larger conservative movement have moved farther and farther to the right, becoming increasingly anti-democratic and detached from reality.
That's fundamentally not true, but he cites Salon and Salon as his evidence.
Now, I'm not going to cite a biased publication to give you evidence.
I'm going to rebut this by showing you hard data from Pew Research.
I'd love to give you more.
Pew is what I have.
He goes on to say the Republican Party embraced white supremacy and white backlash in the 60s.
He says the Republicans engaged in the Southern strategy.
All of this is just fundamentally not true.
Ultimately, the Republican Party's embrace of fascism is a story about how respectable establishment conservatives have made bargains and agreements with fringe factions to hold power.
Ultimately, it's just a lie.
He goes on to say he had a long conversation with former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh, who was a staunch conservative.
His new podcast, White Flag with Joe Walsh, where he surrenders the urge to fight and strives to find a path to unite, not divide.
But when he comes out and says that they would happily, Trump world, burn the country to the ground, It's almost like they're ignoring Joe Walsh and this writer, Chauncey, that Black Lives Matter caused $2 billion in damage in widespread riots, the worst riots we've seen in decades, in generations.
But it didn't matter, I suppose.
These people are detached from reality.
Think I'm wrong?
I bring you now to the hard data.
What we have here is Pew Research data, and it's been measured out, thanks to The Economist.
In 1994, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is far left and 10 is far right, Republicans sat at a 6, with Democrats at a 5, the median.
The median Democrat was a 5, centrist, middle of the road.
Republicans were center-right, at about a 6.
By 2004, the country had shifted somewhat left-leaning.
Democrats were now a 4, and Republicans were just a little bit to the left of a 5.
Meaning, it was leaning right in the 90s, leaned a little bit center-left in the 2000s.
the 2000s. As of 2017, the Republicans are at 6.5 and the Democrats are at two. Now, let me give you
That's actually just moving slightly to the right.
The Democrats, who are centrists, are now far left, moving over to a two.
You can see the visualization here, for those that are listening.
The simple way to put it is the left has jumped three whole points and the right has jumped 0.5 since 1994.
Since 2004, the left has jumped 2 points and the right has jumped 1.5.
Any way you cut it, the Republican Party has not gone far right relative to where they've been since the 90s.
30 years.
So when they come out and they say that the right is radicalized and we have to stop them, what you're really seeing?
The left is radicalized.
The Democrats have radicalized.
And you know what?
I can sit here and show you the data and say it's not about political party because I'm no fan of uniparty Republicans.
And I'm not a fan of a lot of conservative policies.
I'm a bit of a centrist.
When I show you the hard data, they reject it.
So the point is, we can sit here as those seeking truth, seeking to understand, and we can see the left is not doing that.
And I can show you easy examples.
Do you guys watch the Tim Kast IRL Podcast?
I've made a point several times in these videos and in the Tim Kast IRL Podcast that I believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own nuclear arms.
I was then asked by Seamus Coghlan of Freedom Tunes on the show if that meant biological arms as well, and I said, yes!
Now I'm sure many of you right there are saying, are you nuts, Tim?
You want people to have these weapons?
I'm certainly not saying that.
What I'm saying is, When the Constitution was crafted, they wrote a Second Amendment that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The reasoning is irrelevant.
It says that.
Which means legally, nuclear arms are arms.
Biological arms are arms.
And I want you to understand that at the time of the Founding Fathers, they believed in privateers, corsairs, privately owned warships.
There were people, private citizens, who owned ships capable of decimating an entire port-side city.
So people say, certainly the Founding Fathers wouldn't have imagined that someone could have a weapon that could blow up a city.
What are you talking about?
They hired those people!
They issued letters of mark!
They would sign a letter of mark the crown, and they would have ships go out, privateers, privately owned ships, to bombard other ships and coastal towns.
To disrupt supply lines.
I'm not saying it was a good thing.
I'm not saying people should have this right.
But let me show you this.
Now, I know some people don't like it when I talk about issues of myself, and for that I apologize, but I think this is a great example, and it's something I can speak to.
Look at that, Tim Pool's trending again for that reason.
Right-wing Watch posts a clip that is deceptively edited.
And they say, after Rep Thomas Massey asserted that American citizens must possess weapons powerful enough to overthrow the government, should 30 or 40 percent agree, Tim Pool declared the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own nuclear and biological weapons.
Because it does.
And I then immediately go on to say, because Ian Crossland then says, OK, you're not saying
people should have these weapons.
Principally, you know, you're saying that the Constitution grants that right.
I said, Hey, guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast
for the first podcast network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm not advocating for ownership of nuclear weapons.
I've said this in numerous episodes of the show.
What I've said is, you need to amend the Constitution.
In this particular clip, I immediately say it shouldn't be hard to change.
I said previously, we get a convention of states, we amend this, and I think everyone would agree, I don't think people want individual citizens to have nuclear weapons.
What did Right Wing Watch do?
They cut the video so you can't tell what I was actually saying.
Because whether it's to cause war or not, This is the nature of what political advocacy is.
Right-wing watch is a hammer looking for nails.
They exist only to make people freak out and to make people vote Democrat.
So if they can deceptively edit a video so that it ends before the conversation is done and you don't hear the full context, they'll do it.
It makes them money.
It results in me trending and people responding with, I can't believe Tim Poole would say something so absurd that people have a right to own nuclear weapons, as if I'm advocating for it.
No, I'm simply saying, We should have an amendment to the Constitution.
Some people catch this.
Some people who watch the show responded and said, he literally said he's not advocating for it, he's saying, we need to amend the Constitution.
That's why we allow amendments.
The Founding Fathers couldn't foresee a lot of things, so we said, we will have constitutional amendments.
That means, if we've come to the point where weapons, arms, are too powerful, we amend the Constitution!
But we cannot, as a culture, just arbitrarily decide that our founding documents are meaningless, because then the basis of the Constitution itself is meaningless.
If you believe people don't have the right to have these weapons, we need only clarify in the Constitution.
What I was going to say is that doesn't mean people should have these weapons.
And I think it would be very easy to change the Constitution.
Now, why did right wing much lie?
So as I explained, hyperpolarization is the only thing they have to offer.
And now we have this from the Washington Post.
Hillary Clinton's deplorable speech shocked voters five years ago, but some feel it was prescient.
Basket of deplorables.
This is actually from August 31st, 2021, but I bring it up because hashtag I'm still with her was trending.
So this was, you know, six months ago.
Hillary Clinton said those three words in the final months of her 2016 presidential campaign, making rhetorical and political history.
May go on to say, you know, Clinton probably didn't lose the White House because of her figure of speech, but it's a lesson how politicians make unenforced errors, blah, blah, blah.
In a nation where half the country thinks the other half is wrong and possibly even deplorable, it's about how we talk with each other.
I'm still with her was trending.
I take a look at these articles.
I take a look at this one from Investors.com.
It's official.
Democrats are the extremists today.
Published October 12, 2017, when that Pew Research came out showing that the Republican right didn't move that far to the right, but the left moved far left.
Yeah, we talked a lot about this.
This is one of the reasons I said I felt civil war was coming.
One of those reasons is that the left is in a cult, where they think the right is far right, but the data clearly shows the inverse, that they're far left.
They're being shown fake videos like Right Wing Watch, deceptively editing a video, cutting out the full context, Where I talked about amending the Constitution.
And in that particular conversation, I said, maybe there should be, you know, people, we should abolish the NFA and the ATF.
People should have the same weapons police have.
I thought that was an interesting idea that Thomas Massey brought up.
But never did I advocate for individuals owning nuclear weapons.
They're just lying to people.
Those lies drive the left into a psychotic fit of rage.
I can show you the full context.
January 6, violent rioters fought with cops and forced their way into the tunnel entrance.
On the other side of the building, police opened doors for the Maga Mimas, as they call them, people who walked around confused.
Cops waved people in, and one officer even said, I don't agree with it, but I respect it.
Many officers took selfies with people.
Those people are not the same as those who fought with cops.
That's the truth.
You can watch the videos for yourself.
But why would the Young Turks lie about that?
They did.
They made a whole video lying about what really happened to insult me.
The left is in a cult.
They're hyper-radicalized.
The right and independent voters tend to agree.
So I can simplify it very much for you.
If the independent voter base in this country two-to-one leans with Republicans, and Republicans, you know, disagree with the establishment perspective, and data shows the Republicans are not far right, it stands to reason the outgroup is actually the Democrat voter base that believes the lies.
And they are who will be leading us into hard conflict.
Why?
Republicans don't do anything.
The January 6th committee has two Republicans, never Trumpers, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
They're okay abusing their power.
Good, important to call them out.
But the entirety of this committee, mostly Democrats, they're overtly abusing their power, targeting Donald Trump.
Well, guess what?
Why are they doing it?
They're seeking to stop Trump from running for re-election.
They accused Trump of doing the same thing, abusing his power to try and stop Joe Biden before Joe Biden announced.
Well, now it's the same thing with Donald Trump.
We all know Donald Trump's going to run, and they're trying to disqualify him.
They're actively in a lawsuit to disqualify Madison Cawthorn.
They'll probably do the same thing to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.
The left has become extremely radicalized.
And the interesting thing about it is that the tactics they're using are the tactics they accuse Republicans of doing.
So even if the Republicans were doing it, they're engaging in the same thing.
So at the very least, we can call them insurrectionists, right?
They could be impeached for abusing power, right?
No.
Even though they accused Donald Trump of trying to smear Joe Biden, Um, even when Joe Biden wasn't running for president, he'd announce it.
They'd do the same thing, but we'll never see accountability for them.
They'll keep holding their breath and having a temper tantrum, accusing everyone else of doing wrong, while they do the exact same things.
They lie, they cheat, they steal.
And it doesn't matter what I think.
It doesn't matter my opinion on them.
Everything I've said.
What matters?
Both sides agree, the other side has gone nuts.
So I think it's basically inevitable.
I certainly hope not.
I hope you're paying attention.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Canadian government is absolutely livid over the great honking, the trucker protest.
They've tried everything in the book to shut it down and it's not working.
It's being reported now there's about a billion dollars in daily losses over this blockade, these borders being shut down.
And now Joe Biden is entering the fray.
What's happening in Canada is having a very serious impact on what's happening in the United States.
And Joe Biden is pressuring Trudeau to end the blockade, saying, use your federal authority to shut it down.
Trudeau's responded.
Apparently in Ontario, so this is provincial, this is not federal, but apparently there's been a reaction to Joe Biden's statement.
They're saying they're going to come after these guys, they're going to arrest the truckers, seize vehicles.
There's even been reports that they're sending child services down to take the children of these truckers away.
Stand strong, my peace-loving, civil disobedient protesters, because what you're doing is working, and they have nothing!
They have nothing!
Yo, check this out.
This is how crazy it's getting.
You guys, U.S.
offers Trudeau government help to end border blockade.
Whoa!
Could you imagine U.S.
intervening in Canadian protests?
Somebody tweeted, I think they were joking, is the U.S.
going to invade Canada?
To some degree, I don't know.
Look, it's probably just something related to the U.S.
side of the border, but still, the fact that the U.S.
unidentified
is like, we know you got a big protest happening there in Canada, and we're gonna help.
They call it the Freedom Convoy, the Trucker Convoy, the Freedom Truckers, the Great Hunkening.
But yo, if this keeps up, the level of severity escalating with these governments panicking because it's working, this could become the Trucker Revolution.
50 years from now, 100 years from now, there'll be a teacher in virtual metaverse class where everyone's brains are plugged into the neural link, and the teacher is going to be thought-speaking to the children.
Now turn your Open Up PDF page 100 to The Great Trucker Revolution.
Where the government's buckled under the pressure of but humble truckers.
It's kind of crazy when you realize how serious things are getting that in Canada now they're saying that it's criminal to disperse the give send go funds.
Right.
GiveSendGo's raised, I think, let's pull it up, $8.6 million for the Freedom Convoy, and a judge in Canada has frozen access to the donations.
GiveSendGo responded by saying, yo, we ain't Canadian.
We can do whatever we want with the money.
Now, within reason, in the United States, you can't defraud people, but what I mean is, they're going to be giving that money out.
Now, I want to talk to you about what's going on with the U.S.
government freaking out, but something very important must be said.
This is exactly why I have always defended non-violent civil disobedience.
It works.
It works when the people stand up and simply say, I will not comply.
They don't know what to do.
They need violence.
They need you to be violent so that they can respond because they, the government, have a monopoly on violence.
That's why January 6th was so stupid.
That's why anybody who engages in any kind of violence is stupid.
Now, of course, people then try and play the stupid game.
They're probably fed bots on Twitter when they're like, but the left is engaging in violence and it's working.
Yeah, okay.
They're an apparatus of the state.
Duh.
That's why they're not being prosecuted unless they burn down a police station.
They can smash up small business all day and night and get away with it because they're effectively an apparatus of the state.
So, yes, the state has a monopoly on violence, be it their cohorts on the ground pretending to protest or overt law enforcement.
They don't know how to respond to you when you simply say, I will not be moved.
What are you really going to do?
Now, of course, they will escalate.
They'll come for your kids.
They'll do everything in their power to shut you down because they're not just going to let you win.
But there is There is a recoil effect.
It's a double-edged sword.
In order to maintain the confidence of the people, people have to believe the system will work for them.
Now, every day we get examples of the system not working for some people, but the average person still believes, well, the system still mostly works.
Non-violent civil disobedience.
What are you really doing?
Blocking a road?
So what are they gonna get you for?
Blocking a road?
I mean, I don't even think it's a misdemeanor.
I think it's a petty offense.
I don't know.
You should consult a lawyer before you engage in any non-violent civil disobedience.
But it works.
So much so, the U.S.
is now seeking to intervene.
A lot of people on the left are now ragging on the right.
Because many conservatives did complain, saying, you shouldn't be able to block roadways!
And I was always saying, nah, I disagree.
You know, there was a bill in Florida, the anti-writing thing, where it was like, blocking a roadway could be a very serious offense, and I'm like, I don't like that.
I think people should have a right to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, because those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
And there's got to be some tolerance for unrest.
If people are told you literally can do nothing but stand in a free speech zone the government has appointed, well then, you're not protesting anything.
There's got to be some reasonable disruption.
Now, of course, many conservatives said, no, blocking roadways, wrong.
Well, here we are with the Canadian truckers blocking roadways and the left comes out and says, hypocrite!
But I will respond.
As much as the left would like to claim that, it still does not apply.
If the right generally believes that blocking roadways is wrong, then while the left is actively doing it, it works for the left, and then there's no accountability for the left, do you think conservatives are going to be like, well, let's not do an effective tactic?
Maybe you have just changed their opinions on blocking roadways because they realized it worked.
Now, of course, as I mentioned, the government's going after these people because, well, the leftist activists are effectively an apparatus of the state, and they have a monopoly on violence.
So when they do it, the media doesn't care.
When you do it, they do.
Here's a story from the CBC.
US offers Trudeau government help to end border blockade.
officials have offered to help the Trudeau government end an anti-vaccine mandate protest blockade that is sending ripple effects through the American economy and causing increasing concern in Washington.
The White House says U.S.
officials had multiple conversations on Thursday with their Canadian counterparts about the blockade on the Ambassador Bridge, a major trade artery which connects Windsor, Ontario with Detroit.
The White House said Thursday the U.S.
federal cabinet and senior administration staff are now seized with this issue.
They have been engaged around the clock to bring this to a swift end.
Really?
Really.
The White House is getting involved in a Canadian protest.
Canadians, are you free?
Let me ask the leftist Canadians.
Do you like the U.S.
government coming in to take control?
Okay, offer help.
I think it's particularly interesting.
The administration of the U.S.
President Joe Biden said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas urged his Canadian counterparts Thursday to use their own federal powers to end the blockade.
Mayorkas has also reportedly offered the help of his department to end the impasse.
The White House did not elaborate on the help.
Officers posted at border checkpoints at the Ambassador Bridge, crossing the Tulane, blah, blah, blah, vital trade.
Okay, we get it.
Check it out.
Here we go.
Ontario authorizes cops to seize vehicles and fine drivers.
Government asks court to freeze $8.6 million donated on GiveSendGo.
And mayor warns truckers will be physically removed.
No, they won't.
The towing companies have already stated, one, they will not be getting involved because they rely on the trucking industry, and they don't want to cross that line.
They've also stated, it's damn near impossible to even move these rigs without cooperation from the drivers.
We had one driver super chat us over at Timcast IRL and he said, these tow truck drivers know that when a big rig puts on its air brakes, you ain't moving that thing unless the driver wants it to be moved.
Now, of course, there are means of moving these trucks, but we're talking about heavy duty equipment.
And we had one tow truck driver chat us saying, Yes, you can move them.
It is possible.
They say once you finally hook up the truck, it's going to be 60 to 90 minutes to even get it to move a little bit before it moves at all.
That's truly incredible.
But I think the reality is, while it may be physically possible, it is logistically impossible.
I mean, look, you've got all these trucks blocking the streets, you've got all these cars around them.
Sure, you could go in and tow the cars one by one, and then tow the trucks one by one, and then it'll take you three weeks, a month?
Because, for one, it's gonna be hard logistically to even get in there and pull them out one by one, and two, the tow truck companies have already said no.
So they're looking to crack down.
So in this story they talk about the Ambassador Bridge being blocked down.
Truck drivers who have been in the city since the Freedom Convoy traveled the nation's capital on January 23rd have blocked the bridge in a demonstration against Trudeau's vaccine mandate.
You know the reporting.
That truckers may go to the Super Bowl.
I don't know if I believe it.
It's a DHS statement.
They're like, beware, truckers might go to the Super Bowl and shut it down.
And I'm like, why would they want to go to the Super Bowl?
I mean, I get it.
The Super Bowl is mostly rich people and corporate interests, but wouldn't the truckers want to go to the seat of government like they did in Canada?
I wonder if the DHS did this for two reasons.
I say, I just wonder.
There is interest in a U.S.
trucker convoy.
The DHS comes out and says, they may go to the Super Bowl, everybody.
And what I think they're trying to do is to convince truckers that's where the protest is.
So the truckers all then say, all right, where's the Super Bowl thing the DHS is warning about?
Let's go there.
That's bad for two reasons.
One, it's a distraction.
It'll keep the truckers away from where politics really matters, D.C.
and other state capitals.
And two, I think it'll just piss off regular people.
What policy will be changed by shutting down the Super Bowl?
Yo, I'm looking forward to the Super Bowl.
Super Bowl is reprieve, it's relaxation.
It's not political.
I mean, there's probably going to be a bunch of woke commercials.
And if people want to protest it, you know, fine.
But on Sunday, we're all gonna get together, we're gonna have pizza, wings, and beer, and we're just gonna hang out.
I'm not a big football guy, but, uh, Super Bowl is the day where everybody puts the TV on in the background, at least for us, and we get a bunch of wings and dip, and we do this thing with cream cheese, chili, and cheddar on top, and you bake it.
Oh, we're really excited to hang out in the Super Bowl.
Truth be told, if the truckers did shut down the Super Bowl and the news was going, I think we'd all still be like, yeah, truckers, you know what I mean?
I just don't see that being an effective protest.
And I also don't trust the DHS when they come on, they're like, oh, oh geez, oh no, truckers, they might be protesting the Super Bowl.
And I'm like, what is that gonna do for the truckers?
No, for real, I mean, I get it, maybe it's disruptive and sends a message, but ultimately will accomplish nothing.
If trucks were in DC, yo, you'd get a lot of really, really angry people.
And what can they do about it?
No, for real, I mean, the Emperor has no clothes and we see it.
So this is where it gets interesting.
If Trudeau goes after non-violent civil disobedience, it is going to shock the core of the average person.
The average person who needs to believe the system will work for them.
If they, I mean, they're exposing themselves now with the draconian measures they're taking.
They're telling regular people, remember how we all said that, you know, BLM was fine?
Well, now we're going after the truckers.
This is so bad for them on so many levels.
One, You know, in a lot of circumstances with these despotic governments, they always try to make sure that the National Guard and the police are well fed and taken care of.
One of my favorite stories, this may be urban legend or apocryphal, comes out of Youngstown, Ohio.
This is what I was told during Occupy Wall Street when I traveled around and I talked to activists.
What they told me was that in Youngstown, Ohio, the police were actually protesting with Occupy, and The protests were sweeping the streets.
So the city went to the cops and said, what do you want?
The cops said, we want, you know, these demands.
And the city said, you got everything you've wanted.
Now go arrest everybody.
And the cops came right back out and said, all right, everybody, this is an unlawful assembly.
And I'm like, oh, you'll love, you'll love to hear it.
Now, maybe it's propaganda.
Maybe it's not true.
But I wouldn't be surprised.
I mean, there's this viral video right now of a woman in her house in, I think she's in Windsor, in Canada.
And a cop shows up, this young lady cop.
And she's like, I couldn't help but notice that you posted on social media something about protesting.
Here's some information for you.
A threat.
We know what it is.
The woman at the door says to her, are you spying on our social media now?
You think I'm gonna get behind these cops that are engaging in any of this behavior?
Nah, it's not gonna happen.
You think I'm gonna pretend that big-city, city-urban-liberal-type police are worthy of my defense?
They are not.
Now, I live in a sheriff's department.
Deputies tend to be okay.
Duly elected law enforcement.
I kinda like that.
Small town police departments, suburban police departments, actually tend to be alright as well.
The problem arises mostly with the big city departments, but don't get me wrong, I have very little trust in any law enforcement.
Any of them.
Look, I've met some good cops in my day, even recently, and I think they do what they can.
The problem is, these cops don't know what the law is, they're not lawyers, you can't expect them to be, and so they just follow orders.
The worst possible thing you could imagine.
Over the past several years, in the United States, they first did an ideological purge by letting Black Lives Matter run rampant, even burn down police stations.
Many cops were faced with a public that despised them, a government that won't prosecute the people attacking them, and they're likely to go to prison.
I warned, I said, any cop who's willing to stand for this, you know, they're probably someone who should not be a cop.
Because think about it.
Someone who is beaten down over and over and over again and keeps just saying, please, sir, can I have another, is the kind of cop who's going to be told to go beat you, and they're going to say, without question, you got it.
I was watching Outer Limits the other day, and it was this episode Where there's a guy and he's, like, being put in this training simulation thing, and they keep asking him to do increasingly authoritarian things, and he just keeps agreeing.
And it ends with him ultimately killing his own friend.
So, they tell him, like, look, these other people aren't following the program properly, and then he's in his quarters with his friend, and his friend is like, I'm gonna go investigate what's going on, and he says, no.
The authority told me to stop you.
And he's like, what are you gonna do, shoot me?
And he does.
He instantly wakes up from the simulation.
And the guy says, the real test was whether or not you'd be willing to accept authority unquestioningly and you passed.
And the guy's like, yes I did it!
I'm the true soldier for the machine!
And they said, and now because you're unwilling to ever resist, here's the true purpose of the test.
We're going to be subjecting you to experimentation against your will, and you can't do anything about it.
So that was basically, I mean, it's kind of a weird show, but the general idea is these people who are willing to say and do anything, they'll get their comeuppance.
But right now, they dominate these police departments.
Am I going to sit back and just accept and be like, oh, well, you know, I guess, no.
Sorry, I'm not interested in defending cops who would engage in this behavior.
So I'll tell you right now, when you look at the U.S.
government now intervening, trying to get involved in this, y'all better be calling for some kind of at least defunding, partially, of many of these departments.
I'll tell you, I look at New York City.
Crime is skyrocketing.
Don't care, don't live there anymore.
The people of New York City voted for this.
So you know what?
I support them in their efforts.
The people of New York, and I mean this, I've said this before, now I've been told by conservatives it's the more libertarian position, which is probably true because I'm not a conservative.
I said, look, if there's a neighborhood and they vote no cops, I say no cops.
Then let them reap what they sow.
Look, maybe they're right.
Things will improve.
Maybe they're wrong, it'll get worse.
That's their decision.
They can vote for it, right?
Well, I was told, I think it was Charlie Kirk and Will Chamberlain, they said, that's a libertarian position.
The conservative position is, uphold the law for everybody.
And I'm like, I get it.
I totally understand what you're saying.
I don't agree.
I understand though, that just because some people don't want the law to apply doesn't mean you can just ignore it.
The libertarian position is, if New York City says defund the cops, I'm gonna say more power to ya, right there.
Go ahead and do it.
You got these leftists right now that are attacking conservatives saying it's hypocritical to oppose blockades.
But it's not hypocritical, it's just evolution.
If the left gets away with it, don't be surprised if the right adopts the tactic.
The right can now be like... Here's my response.
Look, if you're a conservative, and you are complaining about road blockages from the left, and now you're supporting them, you need only say one simple thing to these leftists.
I'm sorry, you were right.
Road blockages work.
And you know what?
We're gonna use them, too.
Thank you for the help, the advice, and the understanding.
Thanks for teaching us how to effectively protest.
When all these people engaged in road blockages, I said, look, man, arrest them.
Don't charge them with felonies.
That's crazy.
That's what they're doing in Florida.
And conservatives are like, no, no, no.
You need to understand.
It's not just about What, you know, when something gets banned, it'll get banned for you too, right?
We talk about this, the left wants to ban free speech and then they're shocked when free speech, when their speech gets curtailed.
It's also about the tactics you can apply.
If the left is increasingly using non-violent civil disobedience with great effect, Then consider doing it.
But also consider that the left, being an apparatus of the state, can get away with a lot more than you can.
So that's why I think Republicans, conservatives, you know, the more libertarian types, are late to the party.
Because they don't have state support the way Black Lives Matter does.
I mean, quite literally.
Illinois was giving Black Lives Matter hard cash.
Literally.
The government of Illinois, the governor, gave $300,000 to a local Black Lives Matter chapter.
They're actually state-funded.
Recognize the state will protect its interests.
You are not the interest of the state.
But this nonviolence of disobedience stuff, man, it's exactly what I'm talking about.
You know, you always want to consult with a lawyer.
I don't advocate doing things that are illegal, but I appreciate nonviolence of disobedience because nonviolence.
Because we don't want to hurt anybody.
I don't want to see anybody get hurt, man.
But also you need to understand that regular people are scared of violence.
So when videos emerged, and this happened to Black Lives Matter of extreme violence and rioting, Black Lives Matter approval rating and support plummeted.
This was bad news for Democrats in a lot of ways.
Now, you have truckers going out, peacefully sitting around, and the media is trying to smear them and lie about them, but it's not working.
Because people are just like, I don't understand, it's just trucks.
You know, all the truckers are going around smashing stuff, people would be like, help, help, I'm being repressed.
They'd call for the police and the government to come in and save them.
That's what I warned.
I warned this of the left.
Black Lives Matter would go out and smash everything up, regular people would beg the government to come in and save them, and the government authoritarianism would escalate.
You think that it's the Chinese finger trap problem.
You think that, you know, the left being violent would dismantle government?
Of course it won't.
It emboldens it.
It empowers it.
You've got to relax.
You know the finger trap?
You've got to push in and relax, and then you can get your fingers out.
It's always that simple.
When it comes to protest, it's not about aggression, it's about de-escalation, but asserting your rights.
I was just watching Star Trek The Next Generation, because I watch a lot of these sci-fi shows, and it was the episode where they're investigating a ship that has been mostly destroyed.
They find a young boy, and the young boy is traumatized.
In the end, spoiler alert I guess on like, you know, a 30 or 40 year old show, they were increasing the shields of the ship, and then getting slammed by a massive wave of energy.
So then they said, increase power to the shields, and they did, and then an even more powerful wave of energy would slam into them, And then the kid says, that's what they were saying on my ship.
Increase power to the shields.
Divert power from warp.
And then Data, the android, goes to the captain and says, lower the shields now.
And they're like, but this energy wave will destroy us.
And he's like, do it.
And the captain says, lower shields.
And the energy wave dissipates.
What was happening was the energy they were putting out was being amplified and slammed back into them.
I don't know how that makes sense scientifically, it's a sci-fi show so they can kind of just make things up.
But that's what you need to get, what you need to understand.
If you go out, like January 6th, and you say, we're gonna be aggressive, yarr!
The system responds tenfold.
If you escalate, they escalate tenfold.
If you calm down and go out peacefully and reduce tactics, it causes the same equal and opposite reaction.
But get this.
If you come out with a level 1 aggression, the state comes back with level 10 aggression.
If you go out with level one peaceful protest, the government comes out in the negative.
They can't do anything!
Because you're not doing anything!
But you're disrupting.
And it's causing them economic damage.
If they come back with force on peaceful protesters, the people side with the protesters.
Take your cues from Occupy Wall Street.
When Officer Tony Bologna pepper-sprayed those young girls, Occupy erupted!
People were outraged!
Look, we're mad about Wall Street and the bailouts, and then you pepper spray these young women minding their own business.
Now we're getting up.
The truckers come out.
They disrupt.
The police come out and abuse them and threaten their kids and insult them, and regular people are like, yo, chill, man.
The truckers are being peaceful.
The government is worried.
It's working, man.
Keep it up.
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.
Liberal groups are outraged that Joe Biden is now denying crack pipes to addicts in their safer smoking kits.
Before you lies a series of stories, a collection that I have presented to show you the way the media narrative works.
They like to test the waters.
Let's do something.
If it's unpopular, we'll claim we weren't doing it.
We'll get the media to lie to say it's true.
We were never doing it.
But I can prove to you they were.
To put it simply, the Biden administration was promising a distribution of $30 million, some of which would go to the distribution of safer smoking kits, which include often, typically, crack pipes and meth pipes.
Conservatives were shocked by this, saying, I don't think giving out crack pipes is going to help anybody.
But certain liberal groups think it will.
And there's good reason to believe it will help people to a certain degree.
But in my opinion, this is my opinion as a non-drug expert, stands to reason that if you increase the amount of crack pipes in an area, you increase the ease of access to smoking crack, which is not what we want to happen.
The same is true for meth.
We want to reduce that.
So, perhaps the money should be better served by taking people into rehab, cleaning them up.
We should be decriminalizing.
We should be releasing people.
People should not be in prison because they're addicted to a substance.
They should get help.
Well, this distribution program was widely unpopular, and it started spreading far and wide.
Many news outlets were desperate to debunk it, but the reality is safer smoking kits do include crack pipes.
And I have proof, and I'll show you the proof.
So then all of a sudden we get Snopes.
The famed fact checker says, is Joe Biden giving up crack pipes to promote racial equity?
Mostly false.
While they are going to be distributing safer smoking kits and other supplies, and it is a priority to get it to racial minorities, they're also giving out syringes.
I kid you not, that was their actual fact check.
It's mostly false because he's also giving them syringes.
That's insane to me.
The crazy thing is that they even try.
They even try instead of just admitting what they're doing.
Well, it's an election year, so they have to lie.
The Daily Mail reports liberal drug group now criticizes Biden administration for not giving out free crack pipes and safe smoking and harm reduction kits that include lip balm, alcohol swabs, fentanyl testing strips, and clean syringes, and have infuriated Republicans.
This is the narrative they played.
Take a look at this.
Snopes.
Did Biden admin fund crack pipes to advance racial equity?
Outdated, they now say, with an editor's note.
The article has been updated after the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services stipulated that federal funding would not be used to include pipes in the safe smoking kits to be distributed as part of a substance abuse harm reduction program.
As a result, Of that newly stipulated detail, Snopes has changed its rating from mostly false to outdated.
The reality is the story was true.
There was outrage.
So the Biden administration says, OK, we're not giving crackpipes.
The reality is they actually lied about it.
They were like, we were never giving crackpipes.
They literally were going to give crackpipes.
And again, I have evidence.
But I'll tell you this.
If, at the bare minimum, the Biden administration is like, uh, no, we're not giving crackpipes, and they stopped, okay, then I'd say congratulations, the outrage worked, right?
Reporting on this, it was widely seen as unpopular and a bad idea.
They decided not to do it.
But the problem I have is how the media now claims they were never going to do it.
You see, the Biden administration is correct.
It's all just right-wing lies and hit jobs.
Here's Forbes.
No, the Biden administration is not giving away crackpipes.
Really?
Well, we have this from USA Today.
What's inside a safe smoking kit behind Biden's $30 million substance abuse grant?
And they're going to say that Jen Psaki mentioned that it would be, it was a kit with like, you know, swabs and stuff like I mentioned, right?
May contain alcohol swabs, lip balm, and other materials to promote hygiene and reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV and hepatitis.
Well, that sounds pretty good.
And I gotta be honest, all of it does sound pretty good.
The problem is, I think they realized the problem with giving out crack pipes, and then lied about it, and now the media is backing up their lies.
Just tell the truth, you despicable cretins!
I think it's funny now.
Here's the main story.
The liberal group outraged.
They say, while Republicans expressed dismay about a reported plan to include crack pipes in government-funded safe-smoking kits, a liberal drug policy group criticized Health and Human Services for leaving out crack pipes.
The Drug Policy Alliance said the decision to remove pipes from safe-smoking equipment is deeply disappointing.
Notice how they say, remove them from.
Because the reality is, Snopes is lying to you, Forbes is lying to you, any news outlet that says they don't contain crackpipes is lying to you, and my friends, we'll start here.
This is a Canadian website, so I know, take it with a grain of salt, but I said we'll just start here, right?
It's interior health.
Every person matters.
Harm reduction supplies.
Safer smoking supplies.
Well, as you can see, there's Vaseline, there's foils, there are alcohol swabs.
It's not too dissimilar to what Jenseki was talking about, right?
You've got wooden push sticks, you've got plastic mouthpieces to prevent burning and transmission of disease, and you have a glass stem crack pipe and a meth pipe.
I think it's really funny the meth pipe is like a specialty item.
This is what a safe smoking kit typically looks like.
I've chosen this one in Canada because it's neutral.
And of course, there's going to be people putting out safe kits and, you know, smoking kits and be like, see, there's no crack pipe here.
Well, up in Canada, this is typically what is viewed, or I should say this is at least one of the things that's viewed.
Now, I'll bring it back to America.
We have here from HRI Global.
Briefing paper, Harm Reduction International.
Co-act expertise in drug use.
Harm reduction funding typically involves needle and syringe programs, drug consumption rooms, this is like a place where you can go and do drugs safely, and safer smoking kits.
The distribution of safer smoking kits, which can include glass stems, which is a crack pipe, Rubber mouthpieces, brass screens, lip balm, and disinfectant wipes aims to engage people who smoke drugs with harm reduction and health services to reduce health complications caused by unsafe equipment.
By using safer equipment, people who smoke drugs can avoid the emergence of lesions, burns, and cuts to the lips and mouth that are associated with the risk of infection, hep C transmission.
It can also reduce the risk of lung issues associated with improvised smoking equipment.
I get the idea.
It sounds fantastic.
You know, you're like, hey, I got an idea, look.
And I gotta, I gotta, can I just point out, in their safer smoking kits, they actually have an image of what looks like a crack pipe, or I think that's a meth pipe, actually.
This is HRI Global, not global, right?
Another example of what harm reduction really means.
Giving people crack pipes.
Now I get it, right?
Pipe distribution programs can also encourage safer drug-taking practices.
Pin-to-pipe programs, blah, blah, blah.
So how is it that it just so happens the Biden administration is slammed for providing crack pipes, then they claim, no, there's none.
The media says, yeah, there's no crack pipes.
But all of the resources you pull up on this specifically are like, you need crack pipes.
You need them.
Just be honest, yo.
Look, people do drugs.
It sucks.
I think it's a bad thing.
I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies.
I don't think they should go to jail.
I think they should get help.
And if they're doing it in public, that's something different.
If they're, you know, giving it to kids, that's a crime.
So how about you see someone on the street doing drugs, you take them to a facility for help, we get them cleaned up, we actually try and help.
I think the prison system in this country is absolute garbage.
I'm against private prisons.
I think government-run prisons are also pretty bad.
I just overall think we need hardcore prison reform.
And maybe the answer is we do need privatized prison systems under extreme regulation, transparency, and oversight.
Because I'm not a big fan.
I think the main problem is, I think a combination of private services with government regulation can be a better approach.
I don't think the free market will solve for this problem.
I really, really don't.
Because prisons require an institution of government, and when you combine them in the worst ways, you get the worst possible thing.
Fascism.
Or I should say, one of the worst possible things.
There's other really, really bad things.
Ultimately, the issue is, They incentivize writing laws to make more people go to prison because private prison lobby lobbies for this stuff, so we need prison reform.
So if you want to help people who are doing drugs, I don't think giving black people crack pipes is going to help anybody, let alone the black community.
And that's actually what their plan was.
They wanted to prioritize giving crack and meth pipes to underprivileged or underserved marginalized groups, which of course means racial minorities.
And you know it doesn't mean Asian people.
So Latino and black people would be given crack pipes, white and Asians wouldn't be?
How is that making anything better for these minorities?
You're just encouraging and increasing the likelihood they'll do hard drugs.
You'd think if they actually wanted equity, they'd be giving the white people the drugs, right?
Based on their ideology.
Here we go.
The Drug Policy Alliance says, harm reduction works to meet people where they are at and keep people free of diseases and alive, so they have a chance of recovery.
The Biden administration may not be handing out free crack pipes, but a $30 million harm reduction grant program will dole out materials for addicts to utilize when using to mitigate the spread of disease.
How hard is it for the Daily Mail, for Forbes, for Snopes to look up what a safer smoking kit is?
And then you would see, The core component of a safe smoking kit is a crack pipe.
Is a pipe, a meth pipe or crack pipe, whatever.
It seems like what happened is conservatives did real journalism, saw that this is what they were giving out, said this is a stupid idea.
And then Biden administration realized it was a stupid idea.
Their polls are in the gutter and regular Americans are going to be like, why are you giving out crack pipes?
You know what, man?
It's just remarkable how screwed up everything is in our system that we've got hardcore restrictions, we've got businesses being shut down, and the government actively giving out crack pipes at a time when hardcore drug use is rampant.
When you look at the homelessness and the crime across this country, who in their right mind would think this was a good idea?
And it's so evident that even the Biden administration realized this.
If they really believed in it, stood by it, and thought people would like it, they'd say, no, listen, you need to understand why we're doing this.
And I'll tell you this, if I was going to implement a policy, if I had a policy position like this, own it!
And say, listen, You need to understand the world is more nuanced than just to say, don't do a certain thing.
There is a reason why we want to give out crack pipes.
Because the people who smoke crack are getting diseases and infecting other people, exacerbating the problem.
They could say that.
Certainly I'd argue against it and be like, I get it.
But maybe the answer is when you see people doing drugs, you bring them, you decriminalize so there's less fear around it.
You give them safe space for detoxing and, you know, preventing or helping people through withdrawal.
And then we work on programs to stop drug use.
This encourages it.
You don't need me to say it for 50 million times, right?
Jamie Favaro, Executive Director of Next Distro, one of the groups that applied for the grants, told the Washington Post that such kits typically do not include glass pipes because it is far more expensive than just offering a mouthpiece, which can be affixed to any pipe to prevent spreading infection.
I think it's funny.
You look at... I've shown you two different PDFs from two different organizations.
One is general purpose.
They include pipes and mouthpieces.
Because you don't want dirty pipes.
In pushing for the pipes to be included, the Drug Policy Alliance said the U.S.
government has prioritized a criminalization approach for 50-plus years, and it's failing.
I agree.
Overdose rates are at record highs.
I agree.
Also funded under the grant are harm reduction vending machines, including stock for the machines, medication to reverse a drug overdose, medication lockboxes, infectious disease testing kits, safe sex kits, medication, needle disposal, vaccination services, wound care supplies.
The grant program lasts three years and includes 25 awards up to $400,000.
It is against the law to sell or distribute drug paraphernalia, including such pipes, unless authorized by state, local, or federal law.
Now look, perhaps I'm wrong on this one.
I'm totally willing to entertain that.
I did research on what these kits included, and sure enough found multiple instances in which they specifically include pipes.
I found stories about organizations saying you need to include pipes.
I think the media and the government are lying about this.
That's what a crack pipe looks like.
And the reason you'd need to give someone a crack pipe is obvious.
The pipes become damaged.
Dangerous.
Can cause problems.
So they want to give people clean crack pipes.
That's the point, right?
HHS on Wednesday put out a statement contradicting its previously reported remarks.
No federal funding will be used directly or through subsequent reimbursement of grantees to put pipes in safe smoking kits.
The goal of harm reduction is to save lives.
Psaki said the pipes were never expected to be included in the kits.
They were never part of the kit.
It was inaccurate reporting.
No, if you're going to change the basics of what a safer smoking kit is, you need to say, these are specialty kits that don't include pipes.
But if most kits do include them, then people are going to assume they do.
Republicans weren't buying it.
Once again, misinformation just means true facts that make Democrats look bad, said Tom Cotton.
Cotton tweeted, HHS says that Biden's crack pipe distribution plan is blatant misinformation, but they don't deny the report.
Once again, misinformation just means true facts that makes Democrats look bad.
The good news, Biden's HHS is no longer funding crack pipes.
But make no mistake, yesterday's change in policy is because HHS got caught.
Ted Cruz says, reminder, it was Biden admin policy to fund crack pipe distribution until they were busted.
Senator Marco Rubio on Thursday announced the CRACK Act, along with 16 Republican co-sponsors, even after the Biden admin's denial that it would fund the pipes.
Quote, I am glad the Biden administration acknowledges sending crack pipes to our nation's attics is a bad idea, Rubio said in a statement.
It is pure insanity to think the federal government would fund crack pipe distribution.
This legislation will make certain the program can never pay for crack pipes.
And given the Biden administration's position, I look forward to their vigorous support.
Rubio's bill would amend the American Rescue Plan to prohibit the use of federal funds to supply or distribute pipes, cylindrical objects, or other paraphernalia that can be used to smoke, inhale, or ingest narcotics.
Rubio was silent on the needle exchange programs.
In 2019, Ron DeSantis signed legislation that supported Florida counties to launch their own needle exchanges.
I am also critical of those.
I get it.
People will use dirty needles.
The problem is criminalization.
I think people should be allowed to imbibe what they choose.
But I think we shouldn't be encouraging, exacerbating, or funding this exchange.
Here's how I see it.
Even for Ron DeSantis.
You've got people who are shooting up drugs.
They share needles, they get HIV and other diseases and infections.
It's horrifying.
So the solution they come up with is, I know!
Let's give them clean syringes!
And it's like, well, yeah.
But giving clean syringes still doesn't change the fact that they might still share them.
You're just giving them more syringes.
If you want to stop people from sharing syringes, stop them from doing drugs.
How do you do that?
Instead of just arresting them and putting them in jail, decriminalize it so people aren't hiding for the most part, Clean drug rooms, I think, may actually be a good idea.
If someone's addicted to a drug, you can put them in a controlled environment and reduce the amount they actually do drugs until they don't.
So people get addicted to opiates.
In order to chase that high, they have to do more and more until they eventually overdose and die.
If you get people into safer facilities, this is what they were, I believe was partly what they were doing in Portugal, you can say, we actually only go down.
You can't go up.
And so eventually some people might be like, I can't go there because they're not going to give me enough.
However, some people who are desperate and have no choice will say, I will go to where I can get my fix.
And once they're there, they can be given proper help.
They can be given safer supplies, clean supplies.
And that's what we have methadone clinics for.
Because these ideas have been tried.
And I know people in my life who had been addicted to heroin and other opiates who have gotten off of them this way.
I think you need to give Man, I think you need to realize it's not gonna be easy.
And just giving out syringes seems like just shuffling it under the rug.
Clean disposal, you know, but that could be for a variety of things.
I mean, people who want to do insulin or who want to do, but people who have to take insulin, they, you know, they'll need clean disposal.
I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers.
I can certainly understand the argument about syringes and crack pipes.
I certainly, however, think that just putting these things out there is likely to increase usage You know, I'll give you another example.
You could say to me right now, you know what, Tim?
I think you're wrong.
People are gonna seek out the drugs, and unless we get them clean needles, they'll be using dirty needles.
Yeah, and who's to say that putting clean needles out there won't result in people sharing those formerly clean needles?
If there are 50 needles in existence, and there's a hundred people that want the drug, okay, they may all share that needle.
If you put a hundred needles in existence, there's no guarantee that you now have a hundred people who are going to use one needle.
You may end up with 30 new needles unused, and 70 that are shared about.
Or, you might actually have an unintended consequence.
Now, 150 people are doing drugs, and they're all still sharing needles.
If there's a finite supply of needles, there could be someone who says, I can't do it, man.
I can't share a needle with you.
And they say, just burn it.
It's fine.
And there may be someone being like, nah, nah, nah.
I'm going to go to a clinic.
I don't want to get a disease.
Just because someone's addicted doesn't mean they're always going to side with just risking a disease or infection.
You may actually be increasing the probability they overdose and die by giving them access to clean street drugs.
I don't mean the drugs themselves.
I mean, someone goes out and wants to score a hit, and they're like, all I've got is a dirty needle.
The person might be like, nah, I'll wait till I can find something that's safer.
You give them all clean needles, but don't worry, we got a bunch of clean ones.
Government gave it to us in the back.
All right, let's do it!
Odie.
You see my point?
I could be wrong.
I could be.
But I think when you see them pulling back on this, you recognize that even the government knew something wasn't right about this.
And now they're acting like they were never going to be giving it out.
Maybe it's polling.
Maybe it is the right thing to do.
Maybe we're wrong.
And maybe people just ultimately think it's a bad idea.
But I'll trust the wisdom of the crowds on this one.
If the Biden administration is willing to recoil and pull back because they know it's unpopular, I think it's fair to say most people are just asking, how is this going to reduce drug use?
It's going to exacerbate the problem by giving people more access.
Some people don't want to share.
Let's think about it this way.
There's probably a guy out there with a crack pipe, and he's like, I'm not sharing my crack pipe with you.
Get your own.
And the guy's like, oh, well then I guess I can't smoke crack.
What's that?
Free crack pipes?
Now more people have them.
I mean, it's just, it's just simple math.
It really is.
The world is complicated.
I often talk about the Chinese finger trap problem.
Sometimes you have to do something that's counterintuitive to solve the problem.
So I understand what they think they're doing.
I just think they're doing it wrong.
And I think the fact the media lied about it shows the real problem here.
The media outright saying they were never doing this.
You're wrong.
You're liars.
They're just covering for these pieces of trash.
It's despicable.
And it's what we've all been dealing with for how long now?
Basically forever, but at least we can see it.
The media lies.
We know they lie.
And therein lies the real problem.
You got an honest position on these drugs?
Just come out and tell me.
Just come out and tell me and I'll weigh the options.
And then I'll vote accordingly.
But you see?
They want to trick you into voting for them.
They want to trick you into supporting their ideas even when they're bad and they know they're bad.
