HUGE Wave Of Democrats Quit, 11 Admin Staff & 31 In Congress Quit As GOP Set To Win 2022 Midterms
HUGE Wave Of Democrats Quit, 11 Admin Staff & 31 In Congress Quit As GOP Set To Win 2022 Midterms. Biden can't escape his failures on the economy and foreign policy.
Republicans are sitting pretty with polls showing a huge red wave is coming to the midterms. Democrats seeing little hope have begun to abandon ship.
Questions about whether Joe Biden will even run for president in 2024 linger as Trump 2024 is all but guaranteed.
Inflation, gas prices, and skyrocketing costs are unavoidable for Democrats.
#Democrats
#Biden
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The 11th Kamala Harris staffer has resigned, 31 members of Congress are retiring, and polls show Republicans are going to win.
Needless to say, the media and Democrats are panicking.
In our next story, Elon Musk has just become the largest single shareholder of Twitter, buying 9.2%, and many hope he will bring balance back.
to the Twitter platform. And our next story, constitutional Kerry sweeps across the country.
Now 25 states support your constitutional rights to keep in bare arms. And we could be moving very
soon to 26 states. Now, if you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars and
share the show with your friends. Now, let's get into that first story.
Made a joke the other day that Joe Biden may be the greatest president
we've had in our generation, maybe even ever.
Of course, I don't mean that literally.
What I mean is, out of the ashes of this failing administration, we may get some kind of resurgence that can help save this country from problems that have befallen it over the past 30 years.
Notably, an erosion of our borders, an erosion of wages and our labor force, a massive influx of low-skill labor.
We've had the outsourcing of jobs and factories and manufacturing.
We don't make anything anymore.
And maybe what the American people need was a president so bad that he actually was good as a wake up call to Americans
over needing to be involved in these things, needing to go out and vote and paying
attention to local politics.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think Joe Biden may be so awful that he gives America a slap in the face,
figuratively, that wakes them up. Right now, we are dealing with Kamala Harris's 11th aid to leave.
We're dealing with 31, perhaps more, but latest count or last count, 31 Democrats quitting or retiring from Congress.
Major waves of Democrats outright just saying, I've had enough with this.
Moderate Democrats speaking out on the record saying, I don't want to abolish capitalism and I don't want to be party to this, but they also don't like Republicans.
It seems like the Democratic coalition He's just been taken over by lunatics, either who are tribal and don't care the country is failing.
We've got a recession coming, so many say.
We've got inflation.
We've got gas prices.
And they're like, whatever, as long as we win.
Then progressives saying, if you want our support, you got to give us crazy policies and agree to ridiculous ideology.
And then that's not working either.
And then you have the independent voter and the Republican and conservative voters.
And they're all sort of agreeing that there are some basic things that we just don't like.
Many Democrats are quitting and becoming Republicans or becoming independent.
Many independents are registering to vote for the first time.
So what may end up happening this November is that we'll see a red wave.
Now I'm not entirely confident the Republican Party can do anything.
The Republican Party has some of the worst leadership we've ever seen in politics.
This means that you need to get out there and vote in the primaries, vote in local elections, vote for your school board, your state rep, your state senators.
Challenge this system.
So far, I think in many ways, the grassroots level, things are going well.
Although in the past year or so, things at the federal level have been fairly bad.
And truth be told, they've been fairly bad for several years, what with the hoax investigation of the Trump administration.
At the local level, things have been pretty good.
Right now, we're looking at around 26 states that are soon to be constitutional carry, 25 officially.
Although some haven't kicked in just yet, Florida may go constitutional carry very soon.
And then more than half the country will defend your right to keep and bear arms.
Good things are happening.
But right now, it's so bad for Joe Biden that even the Associated Press fact check over at Star Tribune is saying this dude's not paying attention to reality.
He's denying the reality of inflation.
What's happening is not the result.
The recoveries we've seen in some areas are the result of just the pandemic being over.
And the media is so desperate to try and pander to and support Democrats that they're lamenting democracy is nearing its end because Republicans might win?
Who do you think you're talking to, media?
Do you think the regular people that have decided to vote Republican don't realize they've decided to vote Republican?
And do you think they have no good reason for doing it?
Do you think that riling up people who already agree with you is going to change the fact that you've scared away a large portion of moderate voters?
Well, apparently all of this is lost on the left, and the polls are looking really, really good for Republicans.
So I'll tell you.
You've got people quitting the Biden administration.
Jen Psaki's going to go to MSNBC.
You've got 11 people jumping ship off Kamala's team.
Even Jill Biden, apparently, I believe, yeah, Jill Biden criticized Kamala Harris, criticized Biden, Joe, for picking Kamala.
The Democrats don't seem to like each other.
But I think aside from the fact that they're failing, they realize not a good place to be right now as a Democrat.
The party looks ridiculous, looks crazy.
They look like they're obsessed with weird cultural issues.
But when it comes to the right, they may be angry about cultural issues, but it's in opposition to the cultural issues being pushed by Democrats that freak people out.
So here we are.
Kamala's deputy chief of staff becomes the 11th aide to leave in a mass exodus.
From The Guardian, a wave of House Democrat retirement stokes fear for the party's future.
And of course, as you know, the polls find the GOP is favored to win the House with a six-point lead over the Democrats.
Well, let's get started and read about why people are quitting Kamala's, I don't know, what do you call it, the Kamala administration?
I guess it's called the Biden administration working for Kamala Harris.
But let's read about why so many people are quitting before we get started.
Head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work directly as a member.
You will keep all of our journalists employed in writing these amazing news articles, and you'll also get access to exclusive episodes of TimCast IRL Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m., uncensored, not very family-friendly, a lot of cussing.
But as a member, you're keeping all of this afloat, and we really do appreciate it.
Memberships are the most reliable way to allow us to plan for the future and budget.
But don't forget, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and take the URL.
Click that share button, post it wherever you can.
Grassroots marketing is the most powerful way to help support the work that we are doing here at Timcast.
Here's the first story in the mass exodus as Democrats quit.
The Daily Mail reports Vice President Kamala Harris's Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Fox I'm gonna get in trouble on YouTube for that one, but whatever.
Is set to, you know, we'll call him Fuchs, to leave the administration in May.
The 11th staffer to leave in as many months.
Fuchs has advised Harris on domestic and international issues, helped manage staff and accompanied her on foreign trips.
He worked as a foreign policy advisor for President Bill Clinton and in the State Department under President Barack Obama.
Fuchs will stay in his current role until early May to ensure a smooth transition, according to a memo sent around to staff.
He has not yet announced where he is heading.
Now, that's really interesting that he's quitting without saying where he's going.
You know, usually if someone's getting a better job, they'd say, look, we're not bowing out because of pressures or failures.
I'm going to go work at this company.
It's a great opportunity.
In this instance, he's like, yo, I'm out.
At the same time, Harris is hiring a new head speechwriter after her last one departed in February.
Megan Groob will shape the VP's public remarks.
She most recently worked as an editorial director for Gates Ventures, where she wrote speeches for Bill Gates.
She was also a senior speechwriter in the Obama administration.
Okay, okay, so let's be real.
vacancy left by Kate Childs Graham. Meanwhile, Kirsten Allen will be vice president. Kamala
Harris is new press secretary, moving over from the Department of Health and Human Services
after three high profile departures in the V.P.'s press shop. Exciting day honored and
elated to work for the V.P. OK, OK, so let's be real.
People are quitting, but she is hiring new people.
Really high turnover rate.
That's what I find really weird.
Why would someone agree to work for an administration where everyone's jumping ship?
From March 6th, The Guardian, 31 Democrats, a modern record, are stepping down as the party risks bleak midterms.
But leaders say hope remains.
I call shenanigans on that hope remains.
No, there's no hope.
Democrats are freaking out.
They're panicking and they're jumping ship because they know the last place you want to be is defending what's going on in Florida, for instance.
You got creepos being arrested at Disney World.
Creepos who work for Disney being arrested.
And I have to be honest, it's kind of nice.
It's being nice when I say creepos.
I'm talking about child exploitation.
These people are being arrested.
And then you have Disney coming on publicly supporting these protests that want parents to have Secret conversations, I'm sorry, they want teachers to have secret conversations with children ages five through nine about, let's just say, adult matters involving reproduction.
I don't think any regular person is going to be like, yeah, okay, that's a good thing.
In fact, the polls show most people are like, what is wrong with these Democrats?
Well, I'll tell you.
They chased after this progressive insanity.
Which brings us now to this story from Politico.
The free fall of the Democratic Party.
A retiring moderate Democrat unloads on the party.
I don't want to hand this country and the agenda over to a party that's trying to dismantle democracy.
Oh, shut your pathetic spineless mouth.
This is pathetic.
The Republicans trying to dismantle democracy?
Please, they get nothing done.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
But I also don't want to hand my party over to the faction that wants to dismantle capitalism.
I think both of those forces are dangerous and detrimental to this country.
No, I think you're dangerous and detrimental to this country.
Why?
Because you are the spineless, pathetic politician who won't stand and say, look, the Republicans aren't trying to burn anything down or dismantle anything.
They're operating as status quo, and it's terrible.
I think it's awful.
But dismantle democracy.
Pathetic.
You stood by for how long as these insane, woke progressives tried to dismantle more than just capitalism.
So spare me your pathetic, spineless platitudes.
What we need are... We need America First candidates.
And I'm not talking about extreme.
I'm not talking about someone who's like, I only care about America.
I'm talking about someone who's like, hey, you know, we got a problem at our southern border, and if we're going to maintain this international aid, we at least got to secure our country, our labor markets, our manufacturing, and our borders before we can give all this money away.
You see, these moderate Democrats, the neolibs, they're banking on if we give enough money away, people will keep using our money.
Okay, but if the money has no value, you morons, people eventually will be like, I don't really care if you give us the money, because we can't do anything with it.
We're hoping that it remains the reserve currency, and by giving it out, people will spend it amongst each other.
It's not the worst plan in the world, because I understand their point, but it's pretty much a bad plan, because you need value backing the currency, not just, it's everywhere, so use it.
But this is where we are.
Inflation is running amok.
Even the Star Tribune, AP Fact Check, Biden skirts blame on inflation, GOP gas hype.
I love it.
Inflation.
They say, Biden addressing political rhetoric on rising prices.
So I'm sick of this stuff.
We have to talk about it because the American people think the reason for inflation is the government is spending more money.
Simply not true.
Republican National Committee.
Prices are surging and Americans are footing the bill.
No spring road trips because of Bidenflation.
The facts.
Biden sidesteps reality.
Government spending has been a clear factor behind rising consumer prices, though it's not the only one.
Biden last year signed a $1.9 trillion relief package under the American Rescue Plan.
Okay.
You know what?
I was in favor early on of Trump's initial rescue plan saying the ship is sinking.
You can't just shut down the economy.
We didn't know what's going on.
I think it is fair to say one.
I was wrong.
No problem saying that in a panicked situation where we don't know how to react.
I think people will be wrong.
And I'm willing to concede.
Democrats got things wrong.
Republicans got things wrong.
I got things wrong.
And I'm not surprised we got things wrong when we were worried about what was happening with this pandemic.
First thing that shouldn't have happened, the extended lockdown.
That was a terrible idea.
The next thing that shouldn't have happened is, well, considering the mass lockdown, we triggered a mass spending spree.
Shouldn't have happened either.
For me, I'm willing to accept my role in this as somebody who is, you know, producing this show, and I thought, we shut things down, I understand, we're concerned about, you know, COVID, and it was really bad, the Alpha strain.
And then I thought, maybe we need to just, you know, Donald Trump and everybody basically was like, let's get a relief package out there to people, and I said, I think that's a good idea.
I look back on it now and I say, hindsight is 20 20.
It's easy to recognize what we should have done when you know how things played out, not being able to see ahead of us.
I'm not going to blame Biden for a relief package necessarily.
However, at this point last year, it was apparent the lockdowns were a mistake.
It was apparent that mass spending was a mistake and that what should have happened is it should have been, hey, reopen everything.
But they didn't do it.
Even with the vaccine, this supposed key to unlocking this country, there were still more deaths, more covid cases, and the economy got worse.
Fox News reports CNN, MSNBC, NBC are more worried, more worried and more worry about bloodbath of the Democrats in midterms.
The end of our country.
Recent New York Times op-ed said Democrats were making it too easy for Republicans to win in November.
Yes, Democrats are.
Which is why I say, maybe Joe Biden is the greatest president we've ever had.
I'm gonna let that soak in for a minute so that everyone can laugh, because it's obviously not true in the literal sense.
But as I stated early on, I want you to think about this.
What would have happened if we got another jammed up Trump administration?
Let's be real, Trump did a lot of really, really great things.
One of the best presidents I've ever seen in my lifetime, and it's only been a handful.
So, I can't really speak historically, but I think Trump was a really good president.
He's bad in a lot of ways, mind you.
He could have been, in my opinion, the greatest president if it was not for the lack of decorum and demeanor.
I also don't think that weighs that heavily on me, that Trump was a mean guy, because we had many great presidents who were kind of nasty dudes, so I don't really care all that much.
What I care about is, was the border getting secured?
Were jobs coming back?
Was employment going down?
Were wages going up?
Everything seemed to be moving in a really good direction, for the most part, even with Trump being jammed up.
If Trump got reelected, they would still jam him up.
I think Trump still would have been way better if he got elected over Joe Biden right now.
But there is going to be a profound and lasting generational impact of this failure of a presidency.
And that's why I say it is not Joe Biden himself that makes this presidency a great presidency.
It is his, well, how do I say this?
The point is, he's so bad that regular people are waking up and saying, what is going on?
Why is gas $7 in California?
Down the street, why is it $4.50 in West Virginia?
They had to suspend the gas tax in Maryland.
You can't just do these things!
I was talking to someone, they were like, oh, gas went down.
It's like $3.70.
And I'm like, yeah, because they suspended the gas tax, which is like 40 or 50 cents.
And they went, whoa, really?
Yeah.
And that means the other planning that they were going to use that tax money for, out the window.
So what happens?
The planning's been a failure.
Joe Biden is going to just lead to a continual decline in this country that's waking people up until finally they say, yo, what happened here?
And you know what's going to happen?
They're going to find people like me, or Crowder, or even Joe Rogan, and they're going to start listening to conversations where it's like, maybe we should have paid attention to this.
Maybe we were wrong to go out and vote for a Joe Biden.
Maybe this means they won't vote for the neolib, neocon, uniparty anymore.
And maybe it doesn't mean Trump wins in 2024.
Maybe it means Ron DeSantis does.
I certainly think it's going to be.
I really do think it could be a Trump.
I say could be because I lean towards probability says if Trump runs, he wins.
It looks like they're not planning on having Joe Biden run again, but we'll see.
Maybe they will.
You know, we like to talk about Joe Biden being in poor health, but the media is just absolutely desperate and panicked because, of course, they work with Democrats.
Regular people, middle of the road people are not buying the lies anymore.
Fox News says.
Since the beginning of last year, liberal networks like MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC have expressed concerns the GOP will triumph in the 2022 midterms, with many hosts asking how President Biden can save the party from an impending bloodbath.
On March 23rd, the New York Times published an op-ed.
That's true.
Yo, look at New York City.
B. Edsel asserted that Democrats are making it too easy for Republicans to claim victory.
Yeah. And slammed liberals for from turning away from the working class while tolerating brazen
crime. That's true. Yo, look at New York City. We now got reports that district attorneys are
quitting in mass in New York City. It's crazy, man.
Meanwhile, on the March 30th airing of MSNBC's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd sounded the alarm on Democrats' dwindling chances of victory in November with a midterm meter that placed the president's party in the shellacking category, below bad, decent, and exceptional.
It's not the first time that Todd has attempted to highlight Democrats' poor odds.
This is a huge red flag, Todd told Alcindor, to which she agreed, showing that Meet the Press made note of an NBC poll that saw registered voters show preference for Republican control, 46%, over Democrats, 44%.
A Republican polling lead in the generic ballot, as Todd noted, had not occurred on NBC polls since 2014.
In January, while speaking with Rep.
James Clyburn, Todd asked what he needs from Biden to improve the Democrats' chances in 2022.
Other hosts also echoed similar questions on how the Democrat Party can improve their position before the midterm election.
George Stephanopoulos asked Vice President Kamala Harris about Biden and the Democrats' dire poll numbers.
Yeah, we get it.
They're flailing.
I'd like to throw back, I'd like to go back down memory lane.
June 7th, 2021.
Brian Stelter, his one-on-one with Jen Psaki.
CNN's Brian Stelter gets roasted for sycophantic Jen Psaki interview, asking, what do we get wrong?
What does the press get wrong when covering Biden's agenda?
When you watch the news, when you read the news, what do you think we get wrong?
We're so wrong, Jen Psaki, and you're so right.
Tell us what we can do to better serve you, the government.
Peter Doocy seems to be the only one who actually holds the Biden administration's feet to the flames, and the rest of the media seems to give him a pass or not bother at all.
But now, the funny part, we have, where do we have that?
Do I have that story pulled up?
Well, anyway, I think most of you are aware that Jen Psaki is actually, oh yeah, I think we have it right here.
Is this it?
Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki to become TV host at MSNBC reports, eh?
Psaki will reportedly stay on till the end of April before joining the liberal cable news network.
Even Jen Psaki is jumping ship.
Now, for what it's worth, I think Jen Psaki did a pretty good job.
I genuinely think that's fair to say.
Because her job is just to spin people around and spin.
And she's good at spinning people around and spinning.
The reality is, the media is who did the bad job.
Jen Psaki is supposed to lie for the president and spin things for the administration.
Sean Spicer does it.
Every administration has that person.
None of them are completely honest people.
I don't care if you like or don't like the administration.
The job of the press secretary is to spin their position.
Jen Psaki does a great job doing that.
But even she is leaving, and that's surprising considering, I think, in terms of, well, truth be told, it's not hard when you're getting propped up by a sycophantic media.
Here we go.
The Hill.
Poll finds GOP favored to win the House with a six-point lead over Democrats.
From the Hill.
Democratic anxiety grows over Biden's dismal polls.
Yes, yes, yes, we know.
From Axios.
Polls show declining Democrats rising GOP midterm motivation.
From FiveThirtyEight.
How popular is Joe Biden?
41.2% approval.
53% disapproval on the generic ballot.
Republicans are up 2.1 points.
Which is unheard of from Axios.
Democrats air anxieties after Biden's brutal NBC poll.
Oh, just watching all of this is just so exciting.
I love this story from March 22nd.
The Guardian.
Jill Biden criticized husband's choice of Kamala Harris as a running mate, book says.
Why do we have to choose someone who attacked Joe?
Yeah.
Kamala Harris called Joe Biden racist, and she called Joe Biden sexist, and she accused him of very serious impropriety, to put it mildly.
And then he was like, I'll go with her.
These people have no morals or standards.
Now, I also think it's fair to point out that the Republican nomination in 2015-16 was also very brutal.
Ted Cruz was called all sorts of things.
His wife was called all sorts of things.
These people just get in line behind their tribe.
That's what they do.
You know, I get it.
In the primary, you want to win, so you get cutthroat.
But there just seems to be no honesty to any degree.
Look, man, you can come out and you can say, I think.
Here's what I'd say if I was running.
I'd say Donald Trump He's a pretty great president.
I mean, I don't think he's the greatest, but I do think there's a lot of areas where I think he made tremendous improvements and helped this country.
Wages were going up.
True facts.
Unemployment was at record lows, especially in minority communities.
Securing the border.
However, he has impulse control issues.
And I don't mean that to disparage him outright, but to state a fact.
What we need in this country is all of those elements of America First, fighting for the working class, fighting for a secure border, for better trade agreements, negotiating better deals, calling out those who would rip us off, but bringing a bit of the decorum back.
Now, Trump was also imperfect in several areas, notably foreign policy, but his foreign policy was still some of the best we've ever had.
I would like to expand upon those ideas.
That's what we need.
There is room for improvement as a candidate.
And Trump can call you whatever he wants to call you.
We'll see what he calls Ron DeSantis.
It's going to be tough.
Ron DeSantis is doing an amazing job.
He really is.
Man, I would love to see constitutional carry in Florida.
Now in Florida, you can do a lot.
You have a lot of freedoms, and they're expanding them.
I should say, removing these infringements, which is good.
But there's still no constitutional carry.
You gotta get that done.
You absolutely gotta, you gotta get that done.
Ron DeSantis, here we go, from Florida Politics.
He holds a double-digit lead over any Democrat competitor in the latest Florida chamber poll.
Nikki Freed comes closest among Democrats running, but trails the incumbent by 10 points.
Because things are just going really, really well in Florida, people are moving there like crazy.
How will Trump handle that?
Ron DeSantis is younger.
He's a younger guy.
He's not, I wouldn't, I don't know if I can call him young, but I guess in terms of politics he's young.
What is he, late 40s?
He's got military experience.
That's amazing.
He's taking these actions that show he has a real understanding of deep cultural issues and political positions, though not perfect.
He's had some free speech questions.
I think he supported anti-BDS legislation, which made people worried that he would ultimately take a political stance over a free speech stance, but I gotta say, all of these politicians, they do things that are bad.
They can be criticized for things, but if they're doing overwhelmingly a good job, you say it, right?
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 If Ron DeSantis runs, we are going to have all of those elements of a Trump presidency with stronger and younger leadership.
I think Ron DeSantis would probably be- I think he would be better than Trump.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
He'll do what he can, and he'll try to be accommodating in many ways.
I think Trump is off the leash.
I think if Trump gets re-elected, he's gonna be like, it is time to just go nuclear.
Donald Trump is gonna start rubber stamping things.
He's gonna be like, get it done, fire these people.
He is going to purge the bureaucratic element within the federal government, and he's got a bone to pick.
So I think there is Some value, absolutely, in that second Trump term.
Though, I really am a fan of what Ron DeSantis is doing in many ways.
Albeit, I probably disagree with him on a lot of issues, but on the issues that matter most right now, like with schools and stuff, Ron DeSantis is doing a great job.
Democrats have their answer.
Can executive actions save the midterms?
Vox writes, In recent weeks, progressives have issued a dire warning for Democrats.
If President Joe Biden doesn't try to get more done via executive action, they argue voters won't turn out because they'll feel the party hasn't delivered for them.
Yes.
What the progressives are advocating for now is Joe Biden to use executive authority to steamroll through their agenda items that can't pass Congress.
Won't work.
It's an insane idea.
First of all, it's wrong.
It's disgusting.
Despicable.
The people don't want it.
They don't want it.
You don't just get a president to jam it down people's throats.
However, I have to wonder.
I have to wonder.
How is Joe Biden, as president, doing the job Congress can't do, going to make anybody want to vote for a congressperson?
I mean, think about it.
Right now, Congress ain't getting it done.
If people are upset about that, and members of Congress and the Democratic Party are retiring in huge numbers in modern records, Why would someone vote for a Democrat if they're not doing anything?
I suppose the idea could be priming the Democrats to get Democrats who do things, but I don't see why Joe Biden taking action would have an impact.
I just think it's them saying, you better get it done now because when the Republicans win, and it's when they win, they are going to impeach Joe Biden, and they should.
Joe Biden should be impeached first course of action.
What are we gonna do?
When's the first session start?
So January 3rd, I think, is like, is the, um, what do they, what do they call it, um, when they bring, when they bring in all of the members of Congress, they swear, they're swearing in ceremony and all that stuff, and then they go through, um, They'll come in, they're given the books.
I forgot what the word is.
But it's gonna be when all the Republicans, the new Republicans come in.
A lot of new freshmen.
They're gonna have their orientation.
That's close to what I was thinking of, but there's like, it's not the inauguration, but you get the point.
So they're gonna go through all that stuff.
I believe the first thing that should happen, every single one of these Republicans that get in, and hopefully they're populists, File impeachment.
Co-sponsor it.
Impeach Joe Biden.
Why?
Ukraine.
Conflict of interest.
Illicit dealings.
China.
Illicit dealings.
Impeach.
Burisma.
Hunter Biden.
Sharing bank accounts.
Impeach.
Now, Republicans likely won't have the Senate numbers to actually convict, because you'll need two-thirds.
But an impeachment would be, it would send a message And I believe they have no choice but to impeach Joe Biden as soon as they get in.
Let the world see him.
Let the world see him and his administration answer these questions.
Hunter Biden should be forced to testify.
Everything they did to Trump that was bogus?
Let's see the Biden administration and family go through the same thing because this time it won't be.
We know Hunter Biden was sharing a bank account with his dad.
We know he was on the board of an energy company in Ukraine he had no business being on.
And then we got to ask ourselves the question about what's going on with Ukraine right now?
How is it that so many prominent Democrats have family or ties with Ukraine and we're seeing a war here?
Something doesn't add up and we should have an investigation into it.
The American people have a right to know what their corrupt politicians have been doing in their name and that means Joe Biden should, must be impeached.
Perhaps it'll just be a symbolic victory in the end because impeachment ultimately doesn't lead to much of anything other than to say we've impeached this person.
But this likely means that there will, some have said there will never be another president that will not be impeached until I guess a civil war erupts.
Trump was impeached twice, and it was for completely bunk reasons.
Mostly fabricated lies.
They don't care.
They voted to impeach him.
Of course, they couldn't get the votes to actually convict Trump, so they just did it again.
Nonsense.
And now Republicans, anyone's worth their salt, are going to want revenge.
Here's what needs to happen.
You want to see any action take place?
Democrats might lose.
Yeah, maybe.
But if the current Republican administration wins the current leadership, you will get nothing.
And then what?
Demoralization?
No, the primaries are happening now.
You all need to be looking up right now where you live, who's running for office at the federal level, you need to look up who's in the primary, and you need to get rid of these neocon, uniparty Republicans.
I can't believe these people still keep winning these primaries, but the primaries are your opportunity to get them out.
And if you're in a safe red district, this is your chance.
More Freedom Caucus, less neocons.
But if you don't, then we're going to get more of the same.
Republicans will sit back, Mitch McConnell will go, slow down there, Democrats.
And the Democrats will then just get in two to four years later and just steamroll everything while Republicans just sit back going, oh no, vote for us.
What a waste of time and energy.
And this is why so many people just don't want to be involved.
But if you send that message in the primary elections at your state level too, state senator, state representative, then there could even be a constitutional convention.
There's gonna be more states passing constitutional carry.
Then you can really see some changes happen.
A constitutional convention can do so much.
It can change everything.
For the worse, for the better.
It's entirely up to who you vote for.
I'm not saying it'll be an immediately good thing.
Some people want it, some people don't.
But vote in these primaries.
Vote in the primary for the Senator.
Vote in the primary for your representatives.
And then get a Congress that says, we just want to help the American working class.
Start from there.
And then deal with Joe Biden in 2024.
We'll see.
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 we'll see you all then.
Elon Musk is now reportedly the largest shareholder in Twitter after purchasing a 9.2% passive stake in the company.
And I think this is pretty good news.
Big changes are coming.
People are pushing back and Elon Musk far from perfect.
There's a lot of questions about his business dealings in China.
But this is going to ruffle some feathers and shake things up because Elon Musk for the most part seems to be at least leaning towards the side of freedom.
Libertarianism, or at the very least, opposing woke nonsense.
There's no guarantees.
I am not a fan of oligarchy or billionaires just snapping their fingers and making deep societal changes.
But the way things have been going on Twitter, yeah, I think things are going pretty bad.
Elon Musk doesn't have the controlling stake of the company, not a majority.
He just has a very large stake, the largest, and this will allow him to apply pressure He'll need to build up some allies within the company, but he could make some very serious changes.
And the question is, will he buy up more?
Recently, Elon Musk went on Twitter Of all places, to talk about whether or not the platform was actually a good place for free speech, considering free speech is an important principle for any healthy, free democracy.
I understand we're a constitutional republic, but you get the point.
Can we have a free and open society without free speech?
And the answer is no, especially the way Twitter is operating.
Several people responded to this.
I saw a tweet from Mike Cernovich who said, buy Twitter.
I followed the sentiment by quote tweeting Elon Musk saying the same thing, because I agree.
Buy Twitter.
And then sure enough, it's like a week or two later, Elon Musk has issued an SEC, I believe it's an SEC filing, that he now has purchased.
If you look at the stock ticker, it just jumps straight up.
Will this hinder Elon Musk's ability to buy the company, or will we start to see more conservative individuals or right-leaning billionaires, millionaires start to buy into the company?
Here's the crazy thing.
Elon Musk bought buying 9.2%.
It was nearly $3 billion.
So who is able to do that?
Some people have said, Trump, Trump, you should buy some.
Yo, Trump's net worth is only around that much.
He couldn't even buy 10% of the company if he wanted to.
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, was able to do this.
I think Elon Musk could swap out some of his Tesla shares for Twitter.
The big question is, what happens if-slash-when SpaceX goes public?
Elon Musk, you think he's rich now?
Yeah.
It's Tesla stock, I'm pretty sure.
And if SpaceX goes public, and Elon Musk's net worth is gonna, what, double?
I don't know too much about that, but the point is, yeah, he's wealthier than people realize.
Let's read the story from CNBC and see what's going on in this world.
Is it a good thing?
Is it a good thing?
Oligarchy versus centralized power versus a crazy billionaire stepping in and saying we need free speech.
CNBC says the outspoken Tesla CEO Elon Musk purchased a giant stake in Twitter that makes him the largest outside shareholder in the social media stock, not long after criticizing the company for what he said was its failure to uphold the tenets of free speech.
Musk owns 73,486,938 shares of Twitter, which represents a 9.2% passive stake in the company,
according to an SEC 13G filing released Monday. The stake is worth $2.89 billion,
based on Twitter's closing price Friday.
The purchase comes less than two weeks after Musk criticized the company, polling people on Twitter about whether it adheres to free speech principles.
It doesn't.
Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy, Musk tweeted.
What should be done?
Late last month, Musk also said he was considering building a new social media platform, which I believe would be a very bad idea, considering the abysmal failure that is Donald Trump's truth social.
Truth social's in the gutter, my friends.
People are jumping ship.
There's glitches.
Trump apparently isn't even using the platform.
It's so dumb.
It's just awful.
While it is classified as a passive stake, investors were bidding shares higher on the chance it could lead to something more.
Twitter stocks surged more than 20% in the pre-market, so people need to understand it's a passive stake.
So, I don't think he's going to be making any hard changes.
He's just buying up some of the company.
Musk could try to take a more aggressive stance here on Twitter.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said Monday on CNBC's Squawk Box, this eventually could lead to some sort of buyout.
This makes sense, given what Musk has at least been talking about, at least from a social media perspective.
Musk is a frequent user of Twitter.
He has more than 80 million followers on the platform.
However, some of his tweets have gotten the Tesla chief into hot water over the years.
On August 7, 2018, Musk tweeted he had funding secured to take Tesla private at $420 per share.
The 12 months following that tweet were a roller coaster for Musk and Tesla shareholders.
In that time, the company set performance records, but also had to deal with litigation, government inquiries, and layoffs.
Musk also reached a settlement with the SEC that removed him from the role of chairman of Tesla.
I don't know if that Tesla stuff is particularly relevant to what's going on.
The bigger question is whether or not Twitter upholds the values of free speech.
So, we have a couple of these posts.
This one is from CryptoSlate.
I'm not super familiar with what it is, but they ask some questions.
Is Elon Musk planning to launch a free social media platform?
Clearly, the answer is no.
He wouldn't do that if he was investing in Twitter unless, I don't know, he wants to compete with himself.
Probably not.
They're going to mention that he made these tweets about free speech.
What I find interesting here, in this article specifically, is that they highlight the dark side of free speech.
Political philosopher Brian Leiter, who wrote the book The Case Against Free Speech, argues that free speech shouldn't be considered an inherently good thing.
This doesn't mean he advocates the censorship and regulation of public and private communications.
Instead, Leiter objects to the belief that freedom is measured by the extent we are allowed to say what we want and do as we please.
In summing up Leiter's point on this matter, what we want to say and do are beyond our control.
Therefore, to measure freedom by that criteria is a pseudo-argument.
Oh, I love to tear this stuff down.
conditioned by our environment, and what we want and think are nearly just products of
social, economic, and psychological forces beyond our control.
In more tangible terms, there are also social and moral ramifications of unchecked free
speech.
Ripple CTO David Schwartz replied to Musk's call for free speech by saying this would
encourage the dissemination of obscene content.
Oh, I love to tear this stuff down.
David Schwartz says, blue check by the way, so you want a platform like Twitter, but filled
with people yelling the N word, sharing detailed, let's just say abuse fantasies, and posting
pictures of their toilets before they're flushed.
No!
That's stupid and ridiculous.
People have the right to block other people.
You see, when I see arguments like that, from David Schwartz, it is duplicitous.
It is deceptive, deceitful, and a manipulation to gain political power.
Of course nobody wants to look at a toilet before it's flushed.
You block these people, you mute them, and Twitter can offer up sensitivity filters, which is still fairly problematic, mind you, when it comes to free speech.
But, it's quite simple.
Someone posts something, then you have moderators or regular users just see it and click flag, and then it just gets a potentially flagged as not safe for work, and you can click choose to see it if you want.
Maybe you want to look at that stuff.
Maybe you want to hear that stuff.
It's your choice.
Additionally, there's an option for a safety filter.
Everybody defaults to main Twitter, which has everything in the world, and then you can create your own block lists and select them.
That's your choice.
The problem is that right now, Twitter has it inverted.
Instead of saying, look, you can choose to implement a block list on your own, Twitter says, we're gonna just ban everybody who says things that we don't like.
And what ends up happening is, the people who get banned aren't the ones posting toilets before they're flushed, because all of that porn and hate is still on the platform.
Not to mention, the left and all of their racism flourishes on the platform.
You end up banning people who say, learn to code.
Some dude will be sitting there drinking his coffee, being like, look at this journalist, learn to code, man.
But the Antifa guy who posts death threats and calls for violence and organizes violence is fine?
Yeah, that's why there needs to be an intervention.
We have this from, these are the tweets from Elon Musk.
He says, given that Twitter serves the de facto public town square, failing to adhere, we read this one, he says it is a new platform needed.
Mike Cernovich tweets, buy Twitter.
Fully agree with that sentiment.
It looks like he's doing it.
Cernovich then replied, if you're a leftist making death threats against conservatives or organizing riots, Twitter respects your freedom of speech.
Twitter also respects the freedom of speech for media hoaxes, like when every major outlet framed an innocent Covington High School kid.
And Elon Musk says, doesn't sound very balanced.
That would be good, Sir Musk, because it is not.
And we all know it.
Any honest person does.
People like David Schwartz, on the other hand, Full of it.
Completely full of it.
Oh, but think about the unflushed toilets!
So ban conservatives and allow left-wing death threats.
Sorry.
You know, what's fascinating to me is how it's so brazen and obvious what Twitter does and how they do it.
There's a really interesting image.
I should have pulled it up.
I didn't pull it up.
It's the political compass and it says your risk of getting banned based on political ideology and it shows how the, it's wrong by the way and I'm really, I get really annoyed by this, but it shows how the left basically has really low risk and then like as you move right you get a higher and higher risk of being banned but it like skews towards right authoritarian.
The problem I have with this one Is that it shows left libertarian as woke?
Stop.
Just stop.
Antifa is not left libertarian.
Just stop.
They're authoritarian.
You can't be libertarian while threatening to beat people who don't agree with you.
You can't be a libertarian while saying you're going to burn down a theater because people are trying to have an event.
No, left libertarian is not woke.
Woke is not libertarian.
Woke is inherently cultish, dogmatic, and authoritarian.
Left libertarian is a hippie living on a farm being like, hey man, you do you.
You want to share this papaya with me?
That's left-libertarian.
It's very, very hard to scale up.
But I'm sick of this.
You know, this is what they do.
The woke, they co-opt the idea of left-libertarian so they can convince you they're the good guys when they're the bad guys.
Woke people are an ideology.
Whether or not they force it upon you or not, it doesn't matter.
An ideology is not inherently authoritarian or libertarian.
There are libertarian Catholics and authoritarian Catholics.
The ideology itself Not inherently libertarian or authoritarian.
So they keep trying to put people in this space to make it seem like we should support them.
No, we should.
Get the cult garbage out of there.
You want to talk about cooperative economics and communal systems?
By all means.
There is a such thing as anarcho-communism.
The problem is, it very rarely scales up effectively because you get to a point where people just don't agree with each other.
That's it.
Ten people, ten anarcho-communists?
That'll work.
Because they're all homogenized in their worldview, and they can all easily agree to share things.
And they can resolve their own disputes.
And they can all share ownership of their little farm.
A million people, however?
That ain't gonna work.
Someone's gonna get left out, someone's gonna be poor, someone's gonna get angry, someone's gonna say, why don't I get a turn controlling the, you know, the system or whatever?
Why don't I get to, my voice is not heard?
And then you're gonna get fighting.
It doesn't scale up.
Anyway, Elon Musk chimed in to Mike Cernovich saying it doesn't sound very balanced, and that would be the truth.
So I too felt that Elon Musk should be absolutely, absolutely buying this platform.
But we also have Jack Dorsey's, uh, where, do I have Jack Dorsey's Redemption arc?
Jack Dorsey tweeted, the days of Usenet, IRC, the web, even email with PGP were amazing.
Centralizing discovery and identity into corporations really damaged the internet.
I realize I'm partially to blame and I regret it. Jack Dorsey redemption arc.
Jack, come on the show. I've asked.
I've asked Jack Dorsey to come on IRL a couple times, and he says, you know, like, we'll see.
You know, look, I gotta hand it to Jack Dorsey.
I do, I do.
I don't think he's the villain a lot of people want him to be.
I think he just doesn't know and doesn't pay attention to this stuff.
I think, to a certain extent, he's starting to realize it.
I think it's one of the reasons he ends up leaving Twitter.
And I think, I said it before, That, um, I felt he was lying and deceptive because he kept saying he would do things he never did.
And he stayed at the company.
And it felt like either he was just blowing smoke up our... Um, which I really, I really believe it's because I'm like, dude, after four years of you saying you would do something and you have billions of dollars and what do you do?
He invests it in wokeness?
Nah, he's lying.
So I still will say this.
To walk back a little bit of what I said in the past.
I mean, a little bit of what I just said.
I don't think he's the villain a lot of people think him out to be.
I think it's more so that he just doesn't pay attention, and he doesn't care all that much.
So he'll say these things, but then forget about it because he's gonna go do his hippie retreat or whatever.
Then when he invests in the very system that caused this damage, I gotta say, I don't know if he really believes it.
But here we go.
I mean, he's right.
The days of using IRC, the web, even email with PGP, they were amazing.
I remember those days, and Jack Dorsey was partially to blame for these problems.
Someone responded below.
I know this picture has nothing to do with this tweet, but I had to share it.
And it's a picture of chickens walking into a UFO-shaped coop.
I just had to mention that because it's funny and it's there on Twitter.
But I think Jack Dorsey can have a redemption arc.
I think we can bring him out and we can have him be a public advocate for restoring power to the people online.
We should.
I think that would be a great thing.
Meanwhile, while Twitter seems to be going through some big changes, which could be really good, Truth Social is...
This is from Axios.
TruthSocial misses another deadline as users report waitlist issues.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and there's like a weird little cartoon angry chump, sure.
Check this out from Reuters.
Two key tech executives quit TruthSocial after troubled app launch.
Do not play these games.
I said TruthSocial was botched, and I had people tweeting and being like, no, Tim, you gotta give it time, they're doing a soft launch.
No, they're not.
They flubbed the whole thing.
Don't tell me that you're thinking, you come out and you're like, we gotta do what Google Glass did!
Google Glass.
Talk about amazing prospects.
Everybody wanted one.
And then Google just nuked themselves.
Truth Social thought, hey, remember that failed marketing campaign for Google Glass?
Let's do the same thing.
Talk about insane.
Just absolutely insane.
You know what?
I'll tell you what.
I'll launch my own social media app.
It'll work, right?
I can't, I can't, I can't do everything.
We're talking about doing a coffee shop.
Michael Malz had the name The Coffee Beanie.
Excellent name.
Others said Cast Coffee, but Coffee Beanie is just too good to pass up.
We really do want to open a coffee chain and start building culture and pushing back on these woke corporations.
I don't think starting a social media platform is the right way to go, but I can tell you this.
When Google Glass launched, remember, it was a little visor with a little thing above your eye?
Everybody wanted it.
Because you could tell it to take a picture, and it would.
You could say, record a video, and it would.
You could ask it a question.
Hey, look this thing up and tell me what it is.
Hey, translate this.
And you were wearing it.
It was right there.
And it really was pretty great.
I got one because they did this thing called like tweet why you should be an explorer and then I tweeted I should be and they chose me because I know people at Google let's be honest it's all about connections and they knew who I was so they said come get your your glass but it was like 1500 bucks I had some friends spot the cost for me really appreciate that and then end up getting a pair.
And then I had some friends who got pairs.
But then all of a sudden, Google was like, we're not going to release any more to the public.
And you had all of these hipster New Yorkers who desperately wanted it, saying, please, I want to be, I want to try this.
And then they said, no, no, only we get to choose.
So you know what happens then?
It's obvious.
One random hipster guy goes, Google Glass is so dumb.
You're dumb if you have Google Glass.
Huh.
Sour grapes.
But guess what?
There were more people who were rejected by Google than were accepted.
So all of those people rejected went, yeah, Google Glass is dumb.
You're all stupid.
And then all of a sudden, the hype around the cool new tech was gone.
Nobody wanted it.
Truth Social.
Donald Trump's platform.
Truth be told, the left didn't really much care to be on it in the first place, but they were trying to hack their way into it.
Truth Social launches, and even I was on a waitlist of like 400,000 people.
I was told, don't worry, Tim.
You just reach out to our special people and we'll get you in there before everybody else.
And I said, that's dumb.
I don't want to do that.
And then also, my username wasn't even available.
And they're like, don't worry, don't worry, we'll take it for you.
Or I think it was reserved, to be honest.
They reserved a bunch of specific names.
And then I was just like, I'm thinking to myself, dude, I do not want to join a platform that is exclusive.
I don't want to sign up for a social media platform where it's like, All of the well-known people, you get easy access.
Everyone else has to wait.
We want to get all the blue check verified people in first.
We're going to reserve all your names.
And then everyone else can join.
And not to mention, it's Donald Trump's platform.
He doesn't even use it.
What is the guy even doing?
I'm sorry, dude.
This was botched from the beginning.
So what happens is tons of people who are like, I really want to be on it, even people on the left.
And that's the funny thing.
Like I said, they're hacking their way into it.
You had some people on the left who wanted accounts to troll because it was Trump's platform.
Why didn't you give it to them?
Talk about stupid!
If you weren't ready to launch, you weren't ready to launch.
Truth be told, I don't think you're going to overtake Twitter anyway, but it is good these alternatives exist because there needs to be a way for some people who have been banned by Twitter to communicate.
But I'll tell you the real solution.
The real solution is Elon Musk.
Take a sledgehammer and figuratively sledge the Twitter.
Just change it up.
Do something.
Hopefully he does.
I don't know if 9.2% is enough to actually do much, but it does make him the largest outside shareholder and it is a passive stake, so maybe something will happen.
I don't know necessarily what it means for it to be passive, but I believe he's not going to be doing much with that stake.
And I don't necessarily trust Elon Musk to begin with.
I'm happy to see some, you know, some shakeup there at the company.
For all we know, him purchasing Twitter is going to drive up the stock price, and then it's going to save the platform to keep doing what it's already doing.
The Wall Street Journal reports, Elon Musk's business ties to China create unease in Washington.
Tesla and SpaceX are at the center of discussions.
Some lawmakers fear Beijing could access secrets because Congress doesn't have good eyes on this.
Many people have pointed out that when it comes to China, Elon Musk praises them on Chinese social media.
I don't think the dude's perfect.
I think he's fairly good, though.
I do, I do.
I think Elon Musk is generally a good dude.
I want to believe.
I want to hope.
Because he has the power to make a very serious change on Twitter.
This is a major move, and it could seriously shake up how things are going in this country.
Media is effectively... the political news cycle is controlled by Twitter.
We can change things if you bring conservatives back on the platform.
Many people who are prominent Trump supporters who are banned can be brought back on the platform, and maybe Elon Musk can be the man to help make those changes happen.
How about this?
How about everybody else start making moves to buy up what they can of Twitter?
I'm not saying you as retailers, I'm saying like billionaires, the people who actually care.
Why don't you actually start moving in on Twitter and buying it up?
You know what the problem is with the right?
They're so individualistic that they just sacrifice their own ideologies for the sake of just taking care of themselves.
Meanwhile, the collective left is so collectivist they sacrifice themselves for the sake of the collective.
That is unsustainable, and it will result in the left winning basically everything.
But, you know, hats off to Elon Musk, figuratively, for this buy.
Let's see if he did something good.
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.
On April 1st, Georgia passed a constitutional carry bill and sent it to Governor Kemp's desk.
He says he looks forward to signing it.
This is huge.
Let's go back in time real quick, back to around November, the last time I appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast.
When I was on the Joe Rogan Experience, I said that most of the country had constitutional carry.
And I was wrong, but I was close.
In turn, what ended up happening was Joe said he didn't think that most of the country had constitutional carry, and I said, yeah, I'm pretty sure it does.
Now, for those that aren't familiar, constitutional carry means that you can open carry or conceal carry without a permit.
There are usually some restrictions, like you've got to be 18 or 21, but it's like you can carry a gun around.
You don't need to be trained or have a license.
You don't need a permit.
I would recommend getting training, but it's a right.
The right to keep and bear arms.
Now, on the Joe Rogan experience.
When Joe said he didn't agree with me, he said, Jamie, pull that up!
And what we ended up seeing was this up top.
13 constitutional.
It says there are currently 13 constitutional carry states in the U.S.
and two states with constitution carry for residents only.
I saw that and I said, 13?
That doesn't sound right.
But, you know, far be it from me.
I don't have the sources pulled up, but I'm actually rather frustrated by this because, well, I wasn't completely correct, but I was more correct than that.
The truth is, currently, there are 24 states that have constitutional carry.
You need only look over at Wikipedia to see the list of 24 states.
And now with Georgia about to join that list, It's clear that about half the country, well, literally
half the country and the majority of its actual territory will permit constitutional carry,
or I should say, will recognize the right of constitutional carry. But we
have more news too, because in Florida, Governor DeSantis is saying he wants to call a special
legislative session.
That session could actually see constitutional carry pass in Florida as well.
Man, Florida, you're just doing a great job.
But bravo to Georgia as well.
This would mean 26 states will have constitutional carry.
We can also point out that over at Wikipedia they say U.S.
jurisdictions that have constitutional carry, and you can see a list of 24 states.
U.S.
states that have a limited form of permitless concealed carry.
Illinois says non-resident, unloaded, and fully enclosed weapon.
That doesn't count.
New Mexico, unloaded weapon.
That doesn't count either.
It's safe to say that most of the country will allow you to keep in bare arms as you see fit without government intrusion.
And it is the right thing to do.
But the latest news is that Joe Biden wants more gun control because of tragedies.
That's why I just refer to them as tragedies, because it's a tragedy when someone uses a car and hits somebody.
It's a tragedy when someone attacks somebody in any way.
It's a tragedy when someone uses explosives.
Yet they single out guns, and they single out guns in ridiculous ways, which, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the actual social commentary of this segment, which you may have seen from the title.
We have a tweet here from David Hogg.
David Hogg is a prominent anti-gun activist, or maybe that's not fair.
Maybe he wouldn't identify that way, so we'll call him a gun control activist.
He tweeted, If you need a license to kill deer, why don't you need one to kill humans?
And the world collectively facepalmed because, David, you are not allowed to kill humans and you are allowed to kill deer.
It's actually quite simple.
But I thought about that.
When everyone was making fun of David Hogg because he said, you know, why don't you need a license to kill humans?
It's just because you can't, under any circumstances, go out and kill humans as you would deer.
However, in self-defense, why would you need a license?
You don't think you'll need to be defending yourself.
Imagine if you needed a self-defense license.
Like, someone's gonna try and kill you, and so you're like, well, in the event someone does try to kill me, I should go get my self-defense license.
That would make no sense.
Whether it be a brick, a knife, a gun, or otherwise.
If someone attacks you, you typically don't expect it.
And defending yourself typically means you didn't expect something bad to happen.
Now, in the event that you have a weapon, you think the possibility exists, but if you take a gun and you go into a place where you know that there will be conflict, there's a question about the legality, which typically would result in you probably facing charges or, at the very least, some kind of question.
Example, Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse went into a dangerous situation with a weapon, and of course, the police would investigate.
I think they went too far, and for political reasons, but it's very different than if you were in your home.
If you're out in the street, and you have a weapon, they're gonna be like, why were you out here?
What were you doing?
And in many cases, you will face a question of an affirmative defense, meaning, you were out with a weapon, how did you find yourself in this circumstance, they might ask you.
Now, of course, you could always just say, I plead the fifth, get out of my face, I have a right to do this, and Well, there you go.
Typically, when it's in your own house, I mean, it's probably fair to say you'll face similar questions regardless.
But my point is, if someone breaks into your house, and it's clear someone did and you defend yourself, substantially less questions.
However, the point is, you are still within your rights to carry a weapon as you see fit, even if there are potential dangers.
The line becomes, if you're walking up to someone that's armed with a gun, who's enacting their rights, then you're gonna have questions about, like, hey, you know, I shouldn't say walking up, I should say, in a threatening context.
Like, if Antifa walked up to the Proud Boys and they were both armed and they were, you know, primed for a fight, you're gonna have questions about who's at fault in that case.
But it is challenging, I will fully admit.
David Hogg.
He says, why don't you need one to kill humans?
Well, truth be told, you do need a license to perform abortions.
That was my response.
unidentified
And I find it funny that people are like, this is a ridiculous statement.
The response I got from that, when I said, let me pull this up.
I said, you need a license to perform abortions.
Because, yeah, abortions literally take human life.
Now, my issue with pro-life, pro-choice typically falls on whether the government can intervene in private medical decisions, because we're not talking about the same thing as an independent human being who's surviving on their own.
We're talking about two people who are conjoined, and there's a difficult question there.
But regardless, you do need a license.
And a lot of people said, no you don't.
You just need a coat hanger and a back alley.
And it's really, really funny that that's their worldview.
Because I'm like, yo.
To David Hogg's point, you also don't need a license to kill humans.
You need only a rock and a back alley.
Or in public, or a car, or anything.
The point is, we're talking about in what context is it legal to take a human life.
Well, abortions is one.
David Ogg goes on to say, You are completely correct, good sir.
People will think this is dumb, good for you, I'm not looking out for an election and I'm
entitled to my own opinion no matter how much you disagree, there's a block button.
You are completely correct, good sir, there is.
If you need a license to drive a car, cut your hair, or hunt, you ought to need one
Your right to own a gun, with little regulation, matters a lot less to me than the rights my classmates had before they were killed.
No one has the right to instigate lethal force on someone else to their own discretion.
You do have a right to initiate lethal force against someone if they have initiated lethal force against you, or force against you which makes you feel, reasonably, that you could die.
Reasonably is fairly broad.
Someone could be running full speed at you, screaming, and you're entitled to use force against them.
Not everywhere.
So, they like to play this game, my classmates had a right to live.
Yes, but the guy who shot them did not have a right to take their lives.
Nor was there a license required, you just can't do it.
Now, I do have a right to shoot the guy who took your classmates' lives, to stop him from doing it.
Because he chose to initiate illegal, lethal force on minors.
He says, other countries have guns as a huge part of their culture and many own guns, but they don't have near as many shootings because they have right rules.
They have the right rules, we can do the same.
There's a lot of people seeing this tweet, regardless of what you think of my opinions, I ask you to please make a donation, blah blah blah.
Okay, bro.
Well, here's the challenge.
You say you're right to own a gun.
It stops right there as soon as you say it's a right.
It's done.
With little regulation.
I'm sorry.
That's it.
It's a right.
People have a right.
I can complain about someone who has the right to grow their own food and be like, you know, or have pigs, and I'm like, I don't like the smell the pigs make.
It's like, well, too bad.
If you don't like it, you gotta move.
But this is indicative of the mentality of leftists, and I do believe it's indicative of sophistry.
I believe David Hogg is a sophist, however you properly pronounce it, whatever, but you get my point.
Joe Biden calls demands new gun laws in the wake of this tragedy that occurred.
The reason why I say it's sophistry is because he's not talking about any logical or principled or moral distinction.
He's talking about justifying his beliefs irrespective of his own beliefs.
He's just Long story short, grifting is probably the easiest way to explain it.
He's saying, why don't you need a license?
Joe Biden's saying these things.
They're just saying things they think will make them fit in with their tribe.
They don't actually solve any problems and thus actually make the problems worse.
unidentified
Why, your right to own a gun, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The reality is, if you believe people have rights, then you have to respect those rights.
Infringing upon those rights, well, You can't do it.
You can, however, talk about limitations on certain rights.
And that's more challenging because, well, my rights aren't up for a vote.
But there are some limitations on whether or not, or questions on whether or not something is a right or isn't, in a more nuanced context.
For example, do you have a right to speak in a way that directs, incites, or calls upon people to commit crimes?
That's interesting.
You're not expressing a political opinion if you say, hey, you go do this, and here's how you do it.
Or, hey, here's how you, you know, do this thing, and go do it.
I believe there is a distinction between explaining how to do something and telling someone to do it.
But if you go to someone and say, I want you to do this, go do it?
Okay, maybe, maybe there should be a limit there.
Or better yet, maybe there should, and fair point, maybe there shouldn't.
Maybe there should be a line at, I'm going to do X to you.
And the reason for that is if you threaten someone with overt violence, then you have put them in reasonable fear of harm.
There are interesting questions on whether or not there should be limits to any one of these rights, especially free speech.
I've often said that maybe threatening someone or incitement should not be considered free speech because you're not expressing any real ideas.
Several people made a good point though.
Telling someone to do something doesn't make them do it.
They have to choose to do it.
Threatening someone with action doesn't actually take that action, and they can respond to you.
I'll put it this way.
I don't think it should be... I don't necessarily think it should be illegal to threaten someone to a certain degree.
I mean, this is a tough question, but hear me out.
If someone has the ability to directly act upon that threat, that is to say, If you threaten someone with physical harm, I believe the legal precedent should be that person can now act upon you because you've threatened them and they can't trust that you're going to be, you know, acting reasonably or rationally towards them.
The truth is, that's mostly true.
If someone tweeted at me like, I'm going to do X to you, I'm going to harm you or whatever, and then they showed up on my property, pretty much I would have, I'd be clear legally to act upon them with my firearms, to put it mildly.
Because I can say, look, this guy threatened me with death and then shut up my house and I'm like, get out.
But you'd still probably tell him to leave.
You'd still have to probably, you know, I think in Maryland, you got to retreat to your house.
In West Virginia, they have to be on your property and you have to tell them to leave.
And if they don't, it's not, it's not always so easy.
But, you know, the question is, should someone go to jail for making a threat?
This is tough.
Honestly, it really is, and I'll tell you why.
I don't think people should make threats.
I don't think people should be allowed to go on Twitter and make threats.
But as for the law's involvement, the challenge is, someone could just change the context and say, well, this is a threat now.
They say, telling someone, saying, oh, won't someone rid me of this priest is now a threat.
And when you do that, you start to infringe upon free speech.
And this is where we are now with the left.
The left will come out and say that hate speech is violence and it's threatening.
And I've enough people agree that a judge just says, okay, you know what?
I gotta be honest.
I don't think any of it... I don't think the law matters.
I really do not believe the law matters.
What matters is cultural enforcement, as I've often said.
And that's what the real battleground is.
David Hogg putting out these nonsensical tweets, I think is actually a good thing for those who like guns and gun rights, because his tweets make his side look really dumb.
When Joe Biden comes out, he says he wants to ban ghost guns, require background checks for all gun sales, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, repeal gun manufacturers' immunity from liability.
He's saying a bunch of nonsense things that don't mean anything that will change nothing.
Ghost guns.
So you're talking about somebody who manufactures their own weapon and they don't plan on selling it.
You're allowed to do that.
Require background checks for all gun sales.
Well, through FFLs, through any store, that is the reality.
There are some areas and jurisdictions where private sales are allowed, notably in West Virginia.
Why?
It makes no sense for Jim Bob to drive three hours to meet up with, you know, Mary Sue, so that he can transfer a weapon when they both live in the mountains and are next door neighbors.
However, I always recommend people go through an FFL because you don't want to take the risk or the liabilities.
If you transfer weapon to someone who isn't legally allowed to have one, say they're a felon or something like that, then that's on you.
Ban assault weapons.
That means nothing because there's no such thing as an assault weapon.
That's a meaningless term.
And high-capacity magazines.
Also completely meaningless.
30-round magazines are standard capacity.
Literally, not exaggerating, it's actually standard capacity.
When you buy any, and I'm talking about, you know, essentially like 5.56 or 7.62, like AR-15 rifles, basically any semi-auto rifle, it's usually going to come with a magazine that can hold 30 rounds.
What Joe Biden is doing, what the left is doing, is trying to change the definition by saying high capacity actually means 10 or more.
That's ridiculous and nonsensical.
Here's what matters.
What matters is constitutional carry is winning in the United States.
Take a look at this.
I love showing this progression.
It's a map showing over time more and more states adopting the right to carry.
Back in 1993, there was one unrestricted state.
And I believe that's Vermont up there.
Man, that's a Bernie Sanders state.
They love their guns.
Over time, shall issue came to dominate.
Alaska became unrestricted.
And now as we enter the late 2000s, almost every state is shall issue.
There are some changes.
Wisconsin gave up on their no issue because crime was skyrocketing.
Constitutional carry started to emerge in the 2010s.
And now, by 2022, we are on track for 26 states.
To have unrestricted rights to keep and bear arms, that's amazing.
That includes handguns.
You know what's really surprising to me is that apparently right now, Florida has restricted carrying of handguns and long guns.
I didn't know that.
Florida, get your act together.
DeSantis, call in the special session.
Give people back their, well I should say, stop infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms.
We went to Texas.
I went to a gun store.
Texas is great.
They got constitutional carry.
So they were like, you can buy any weapon you want.
We'll do the NICS background check and then you can walk out the door with it.
And I was like, well, I don't want to do that because we have to drive it back.
We'd have to drive the weapons back to West Virginia.
So we'll just, you know, have it shipped to our FFL.
Gets delivered to our local gun store.
We show up, we fill out a form.
It's like 50 bucks.
And then they hand them to us.
And then West Virginia's open, you know, constitutional carry.
So you can walk around carrying all these weapons unrestricted.
That's my understanding.
Cultural enforcement is the most important thing.
If Joe Biden convinces people an assault weapon is a thing, then all of a sudden people will be like, okay, well then a thing that isn't real is real.
It's a vague term that means mostly nothing.
The point is, if a judge determines that having a gun is threatening someone, or walking up to someone with a gun is threatening them, then they can just say it.
Right now in New York, for instance, in Chicago, basically anywhere, they say, you have a right to free speech, the cops will arrest you for disorderly conduct.
What does that even mean?
And typically, they'll get away with it.
You'll be out in the street and you'll be yelling about, you know, woke stuff, or you'll be yelling about Christian stuff, and the cops can walk up to you and say, you need to leave now or else.
And if you say, no, I have a right to free speech, they'll say, disorderly conduct.
They'll say, blocking a roadway.
Laws only go so far.
It's one of the biggest problems with conservatives.
They often think winning the legal battle or the political battle is the right way to win.
No, no, no.
Cultural battles are the most important.
Now, politics is downstream from culture, which is why we're now going to have all of these states allowing concealed carry, so that's a good thing.
But even with concealed carry in the law, cops can still say, oh, but having the gun was threatening somebody.
If you're in New York or any one of these blue states.
Right now, we can see in this map of constitutional carry, by jurisdiction, California is all over the place.
New York is all over the place.
New York City, they say, is no issue in practice, and so is New Jersey.
Maryland is a May issue state, but let's be real, for those that know, Maryland is also no issue and Hawaii is no issue.
Even though by the law, The law states in New Jersey and New York, you can, it's a may issue, meaning you can apply, and they're supposed to give you a weapon if you do.
They can, they don't have to, it's may issue.
Shall issue, this is cool, you can see shall issue, constitutional carry pass, but not yet in effect.
And we can see, you know, Indiana and Ohio have just signed them, that's fantastic.
You can see there's also may issue, yellow, and there's shall issue, which is blue.
In a shall issue state, you apply, they give you your permit.
Okay, good.
It's concealed carry.
In Maryland, what happens is, they say, like, what's your reason for needing the gun?
And if you say, it's my right, they say, buh-bye, have a nice day, and they won't give it to you.
New Jersey's the worst.
In New Jersey, if you're famous or rich, you'll get one.
That's what I'm told.
There's one way you can get them too.
They say that if your job requires the transfer of a lot of money, so if you're doing like massive bank transfers, they'll allow you to get a concealed carry.
My understanding is that they don't allow open carry.
They only allow concealed carry.
I find that so weird to be honest.
But I guess their concern is if you have a gun showing, like open carry, people freak out.
So they want you to keep it concealed.
The remarkable thing is that Illinois claims to be a shell-issue state, but you cannot carry guns.
I mean, there was a big court battle.
And now you can.
In Illinois, there are signs on all the doors saying, like, no guns allowed in these buildings.
But, uh, hey man, the Constitution is the Constitution.
It's amazing to see that the culture of constitutional rights is winning, and I believe it's winning across the board.
The earlier segment I had was, uh, I did, was on Elon Musk buying a large portion of Twitter because I think there are enough people in this country that say, I don't like it when you have power over me and you do bad things to me, so people push back.
Now Elon Musk may be an oligarch, hopefully he does the right thing to the extent that he can do the right thing.
And I think we're going to see more and more states, because take a look at this.
In this map, Florida should be green.
Louisiana should be green.
What is going on with these states?
New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska.
Is it Nebraska or is it, I don't know.
One of those states in the middle that we often don't think about, Nevada.
Washington?
They should all be constitutional carry.
Minnesota and Wisconsin?
Come on.
Michigan?
They should all be constitutional carry.
Pennsylvania should be constitutional carry.
Virginia should be.
The Carolinas should be.
Georgia is coming.
Mississippi is already here.
Alabama's coming.
But all of these states should be.
They should all be.
Because these are states with massive rural populations who need weapons.
You got bears, you got critters, you got dangerous predators.
You should have the right to keep bear arms on that alone.
But, outside of hunting, or any other real, like, practical issue the left can't argue on, we have a Second Amendment right.
Truth be told, the entire country should be constitutional, Kerry.
But, uh, I'll put it, I'll leave it that way.
We're winning.
David, get better arguments.
Your arguments actually are worse for your side.
Why don't you need a license to kill humans?
Bro, there is no license to kill people.
There's none.
Police can't even just kill people.
They often get away with it when they freak out and shoot somebody.
I shouldn't say get away with it, but they're often not held accountable because people are typically like, well, you know, we expect them to go in these dangerous situations and then bad things happen, but I think police should have some more accountability.
It's just hard to figure out the right way to make it work when you do have violent crime.
Truth be told, culture matters so much more.
If no judge in this country was willing to uphold constitutional carry, there wouldn't be one.
They could lock you up and say, do something about it.
And if no one was willing to stick out their neck, then you'd be locked up.
There are people in many states that are unwilling to enforce certain laws because of cultural reasons.
A cop could say, hey, you shouldn't have, you know, that weapon.
Turn around and go back to your state.
I talked about this in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
And there are some cops that are like, well, the law is the law.
Culture matters more than anything else.
Constitutional Kerry is winning, my friends.
Out of all the things happening in the culture war, that may be the biggest area of victory for the right, for the libertarians, for civil libertarians, and just people who actually believe in the right to keep and bear arms, because we believe in the people.
