U.S. Assisted Sinking Of Russian Flagship Sparking Fear Of World War 3, Russia Threatens NUKES AGAIN
U.S. Assisted Sinking Of Russian Flagship Sparking Fear Of World War 3, Russia Threatens NUKES AGAIN. The US and establishment seem hell bent on getting US directly into a ground war in Europe.
Fears of nuclear war and world war three have been persistent as the war in Ukraine continues but this latest report suggests the US is already directly involved.
Considering NATO is providing training, intel, weapons, and indirectly it is supplying ground forces, this already appears to be a major war between NATO and Russia
Amid the rising tensions the conflict between Democrats and Republicans seem petty but the US is drifting toward civil war and it could end up as a major upheavel.
#Ukraine
#WorldWarThree
#Russia
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
provided intelligence that allowed Ukraine to sink the Russian Black Sea flagship in a direct role in war against Russia.
Now, U.S.
officials are saying they didn't know it was going to happen, but now another Russian warship has been hit.
The U.S.
seems to be getting directly involved in this war, and it seems likely to escalate.
In our next story, a bill in Louisiana advances that would make abortion homicide.
We're getting dangerously close to civil war, and the abortion issue is inching us forward.
In our next story, Missouri and Louisiana file a lawsuit against Democrats for colluding with big tech to censor conservatives and news on social media.
The evidence is actually quite damning.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Well, most of us are tied up in domestic issues, keeping us well distracted.
The U.S.
assisted in the sinking of a Russian flagship known as the Moskva.
Now, the U.S., of course, is trying to back off and say, look, we weren't directly involved.
But even NBC News says the U.S.
played a role in the sinking of the Russian Black Sea flagship.
And Russia is basically already saying they are at war with NATO.
A state propagandist said that it is NATO training the troops, that they are citizens of NATO countries in Ukraine fighting, and they are fighting against NATO armaments.
At which point do we actually just say we are at war with Russia?
I think it's fair to say that the U.S.
is involved providing intelligence to Ukraine so that they can sink Russian ships with NATO military weapons.
And that's a little bit on the nose.
Well, I don't know exactly if the weapons they use to sink these ships came from NATO.
They were using, I think they're called, what, Neptune missiles?
I could be wrong about that.
But there's also another report that another Russian ship may have been struck by a missile and may be sinking.
Russia initially denied reports that it was a missile that struck their ship and said it was a fire.
But now we have more news.
Sabotage wreaking havoc across Russia, chemical plants, weapons facilities, recruitment facilities being attacked or mysteriously burning down.
Could it be that we are actively engaged in a cross-border war that is no longer just Russia who has invaded Ukraine?
Could it be that these stories over at NBC News are leaked on purpose to try and force the U.S.
to engage in Ukraine?
The American people are not willing to engage in war in Ukraine.
Certainly, we don't want our soldiers on the ground.
But there are already U.S.
citizens fighting there.
There are already citizens of NATO fighting there.
It seems like this is a sneaky fourth or fifth generational way to engage in full-scale warfare with an adversary of the U.S.
while claiming it's not really happening.
Meanwhile in the U.S., there have been several stories about food plants starting on fire, or having fires in them.
Of course, when you look at the mainstream press, they say it's a conspiracy theory among the right that there are food processing plant fires.
There's also stories about chickens getting a chicken flu and having to be culled.
I don't know exactly why this is happening, but if you go to Google and you search, You'll find a ton of stories about all of these different food processing plants starting on fire.
It may just be that fires happen, and because of the conflict, people have started to notice.
That's why I'm not a big fan of chasing after the story as if there's something nefarious going on.
But I do think it's worth highlighting, considering when Russia is hit by chemical facilities bursting into flames, Media outright calls it sabotage.
When in the U.S.
there are a handful of stories about fires and plane crashes, the media says the right believes a conspiracy theory to cause food shortages is affecting the U.S.
and it's all fake news.
Well, I'm certainly not saying someone's trying to start food shortages in the U.S.
like a grand conspiracy, but I would entertain the possibility that we are at war With not just Russia, many adversaries, it is escalating through hot conflict.
And do you think that if the U.S.
is providing intelligence, weapons, and manpower indirectly to the war in Ukraine and the Russian flagship was sunk, that Russia's gonna be like, we won't do anything in retaliation?
Or is it at least possible?
An important talk about our critical infrastructure and what's called industrial control system vulnerabilities.
That is to say, cyber warfare is very real.
Is it possible that Russia is engaging in cyber war or their allies are against the U.S.
So I will say, in the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
And fires happen.
But I do think it's worth talking about just because of what the after-effects of it is going to be.
Certainly, you can make assumptions about whether or not these fires at food-pressing plants and warehouses and distribution centers, you can talk about whether or not you think it's warfare or a conspiracy.
The most important factor here is as we're learning, That there is going to be a food shortage due to this war.
We should pay attention to the destruction at our food distribution and processing centers, because that will exacerbate the problem.
But let's get started with, is the US going to war with Russia?
Apparently, we're already there.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, and in the top right side you will see Sign Up.
Click that button to become a member at TimCast to support our journalists.
We're not perfect, but we try very hard.
Our reporters are working every day, and we're hiring more.
We just brought a new columnist I'll be excited to announce shortly.
Because we're going to be bringing you opinion analysis and fact-based reporting.
We're also going to be hiring an independent fact checker who will work outside of our newsroom to call out any of our articles that would be fake news and even check framing.
If an article appears to be biased based on how it's framed, we're going to be doing all of that.
With your support as members, we are able to bring on these key players to help make sure we're producing factual and sound news to help you make decisions in your life.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments on the Tim Cast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m., and you're going to assist in our culture-jamming marketing strategy.
Probably going to do one campaign per month.
We got a little taste of it with that Times Square billboard we bought, but more is coming.
And we're going to start slow and we're going to ramp things up.
We are going to let the elites in the establishment know that with your support, they're not the elites anymore.
That we are able to muster up power to speak out and usurp the throne.
Thank you so much for everybody who's supporting us as we continue in this mission.
The flagship of Russia's Black Sea fleet sank on April 14th after being struck by two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles, according to U.S.
officials.
Intelligence shared by the U.S.
helped Ukraine sink the Russian cruiser Moskva, U.S.
officials told NBC News, confirming an American role in perhaps the most embarrassing blow to Vladimir Putin's troubled invasion of Ukraine.
Let's just stop for a minute there.
NBC News saying the U.S.
played a role in sinking Vladimir Putin's Black Sea flagship.
One of the core reasons for this war is the warm water port in Crimea, Russia's access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and this was their flagship, and the U.S.
gave the intel to Ukraine that allowed them to sink it, or at the very least played a role by providing the intel.
Come on.
You think Russia's sitting back going, we're not at war?
Now I think there's an attempt on both sides of this conflict to play down what's really happening out of fear it will get out of hand too fast.
But Russia has absolutely entertained the possibility of nuclear retaliation, giving us a warning only in the past few days.
We got Sweden and Finland saying they're going to join NATO, Russia saying don't you do it or we'll go to war.
And the threat of using nukes, and we're just carrying along as we inch toward some kind of serious escalation.
NBC goes on, a guided missile cruiser carrying a crew of 510.
The Moskva was the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
It sank on April 14th after being struck by two Ukrainian Neptune anti-ship missiles.
officials said, Moscow said the vessel sank after a fire.
The Moskva was the largest Russian warship sunk in combat since World War II.
American officials said there were significant Russian casualties, but they don't know how many.
The attack happened after Ukrainian forces asked the Americans about a ship sailing in the Black Sea south of Odessa, U.S.
officials told NBC News.
The U.S.
identified it as the Moskva and helped confirm its location, after which the Ukrainians targeted the ship.
You mean to tell me, huh?
You're gonna come to me and say, the U.S.
said, hey, you see that boat?
That's the Russian flagship.
And Ukraine went, okay, beep!
And the U.S.
went, oh, oh no, we didn't, oh, we didn't even realize Ukraine was at war with Russia and would sink their flagship.
Come on.
The U.S.
did not know in advance that Ukraine was going to target the Moskva, officials said.
Spare me!
Are you kidding?
And was not involved in the decision to strike.
Maritime intelligence is shared with Ukraine to help it defend against attack from Russian ships, official added.
So we're providing intelligence to Ukraine, weapons, and inadvertently personnel, but we're not intending for them to use it in an offensive capability.
Okay, slow down.
Russia's in the wrong for invading Ukraine.
That's easy.
The U.S.
engages in soft power tactics.
I think it's kind of dirty.
I prefer the U.S.
mind its own business.
But in the game of geopolitics and international conflict, the U.S.
going in and offering up money in exchange for favors is substantially more preferable.
If that's all we had was like Game of Thrones-style politicking and no war, We'd be much better off.
Russia engaging in actual overt warfare just means they lost the actual political game.
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.
role in the sinking has not been previously reported, but NBC News detailed last month how American intelligence shared with Ukraine had been instrumental in Ukraine's successes to date, including in helping Ukraine target Russian forces and avoid Russian attacks.
American officials have expressed concerns that reporting about U.S.
intelligence sharing with Ukraine could anger Putin and provoke an unpredictable response.
Here we go, baby.
The U.S.
wants it.
We want in that war.
But we gotta be careful.
The Gulf of Tonkin, you remember this?
When we staged, the U.S.
staged a false flag.
It was a false flag story.
Oh no, we've been attacked!
So that we could enter the war in Vietnam.
The U.S.
can't do that, necessarily.
They gotta play it different.
So here's what seems to be the strategy.
Poke the bear until the bear strikes back.
Then once Russia retaliates in any way against any NATO country, the U.S.
could go, well, now we have to invade.
Now we have to go to war in Ukraine.
Put boots on the ground.
In a statement released after the story was published, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said the U.S.
did not provide Ukraine with specific targeting information for the Moskva.
We were not involved in the Ukrainians' decision to strike the ship or in the operation they carried out.
We had no prior knowledge of Ukraine's intent to target the ship.
The Ukrainians have their own intelligence capabilities to track and target Russian naval vessels, as they did in this case.
The media is lying, desperate to get us involved in this war.
So I want to be very careful.
I think, however, the U.S.
absolutely is taking actions to involve us in the war.
I think we're already involved in the war, and I don't think it ends here.
Is it a world war?
Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
Russia is a regional power.
I mean, they're massive, so they dominate a large swath of the planet.
I believe that Russia has more land mass than Pluto, but It's not the landmasses and what matters.
It has access to resources, but it's a cold place in many ways.
So, we'll see.
But Russia is powerful nonetheless, and this conflict could drag in China.
China's already made moves to shore up its financial defenses in the event of Western sanctions, which has many people worried they're planning on moving on Taiwan.
Now, following the news about the Moskva, we have this story.
Has Ukraine blasted another Russian warship?
MP says frigate is in trouble in the Black Sea and suggests it has been hit with a missile.
Interesting.
Oleksii Goncharenko, head of the Council of Odessa, which houses Ukraine's largest naval base, identified the vessel on his Telegram channel as the Admiral Makarov.
He said the vessel ran into difficulties overnight before reposting a report from a local news outlet suggesting it had been shot with Ukrainian missile near Snake Island, whose defenders memorably told another warship to go F themselves before they were captured and then released.
That's my understanding.
It's been a while since I read that story, so...
Fact check me on that one.
Unconfirmed reports suggest rescue vessels and aircraft have set off from Russia's largest Black Sea port in Sevastopol toward the site, while flight tracking data shows an American drone is circling nearby.
If confirmed, it would be another hugely embarrassing loss for Russia after Ukraine managed to sink the Moskva, their flagship.
I would just like to take an aside here and point out the new movie Top Gun Maverick, Which is about a bunch of fighter pilots.
Which there are.
But I just think it's funny because, like, everything's drones these days.
They gotta do Top Gun 3 and it's just, like, a guy sitting in a room and he's kinda like, he's got a big beer bell and he's eating chips.
And he's piloting a drone via remote control.
I'm kidding, I know that's not what it's like, but you get the point.
Alright.
So what's Vladimir Putin's response?
What does he think about all this?
Do you think ol' Vladdy is sitting back like, I don't care that this is happening.
Putin to send doomsday warning to West at Russia's World War II victory parade.
A doomsday warning.
Could nuclear war be headed our way?
Do you think Russia, as I stated, is just sitting back like, oh, the West isn't doing anything?
Yo, I'm pretty sure Vladimir Putin is like, put the missiles on high alert.
I mean, he already did that.
He already put his nuclear forces on high alert.
We better tread carefully here.
President Vladimir Putin will send a doomsday warning to the West when he leads celebrations on Monday marking the 77th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany, brandishing Russia's vast firepower while its forces fight on in Ukraine.
Defiant in the face of deep Western isolation since he ordered the invasion of Russia's neighbor, Putin will speak on Red Square before a parade of troops, tanks, rockets, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Interesting.
A flypast over St. Basil's Cathedral will include supersonic fighters, TU-160 strategic
bombers, and for the first time since 2010, the Il-80 doomsday command plane, which would
carry Russia's top brass in the event of a nuclear war, the defense ministry said.
In that scenario, the Il-80, or the I-L-80, is designed to become the roaming command
center for the Russian president.
It is packed with technology, but specific details are Russian state secrets.
The 69-year-old Kremlin leader has repeatedly likened the war in Ukraine to the challenge
the Soviet Union faced when Adolf Hitler's Nazis invaded in 1941.
The attempt to appease the aggressor on the eve of the Great Patriotic War turned out to be a mistake that cost our people dearly, Putin said on February 24th, when he announced what he called a special military operation in Ukraine.
We will not make such a mistake a second time.
We have no right.
And that's important.
How is Russia framing this conflict?
You heard it right there.
Vladimir Putin is likening what's happening to appeasing Hitler and then waiting for Hitler to invade.
And this is omitted from much of the standard mainstream context over the war.
They say, Putin is just, he's Hitler trying to steal land.
Not so simple.
Ukraine going to NATO or the EU would be an expanse that Vladimir Putin is not willing to tolerate.
I believe invading was wrong.
But his argument is, if we sit back, they'll invade us.
Welcome to war, man.
This is why I oppose it.
Because it's just getting to the point where everyone just starts attacking.
And then there's destruction.
And we see these beautiful cities of Ukraine start to crumble.
And it is sad to see.
Putin casts the war in Ukraine as a battle to protect Russian speakers there from persecution by Nazis and to guard against what he terms the U.S.
threat to Russia posed by NATO enlargement.
Ukraine and the West dismiss the fascism claim as nonsense and say Putin is waging an unprovoked war of aggression.
Well, whether or not you want to have the opinion of the United States government or the Russian government, look, the point is the U.S.
was playing soft power games.
Joe Biden is a criminal.
And that contributed to this.
I think we could have avoided all of this if we just brought in Donald Trump.
That NATO would have had its defenses shored up, Russia would not have invaded.
Because the question is simple.
Why did Russia wait until after Donald Trump got out of office to invade?
Why did he not invade during Trump's presidency?
Two reasons.
Vladimir Putin feared Trump at least a little bit.
And Trump was doing right internationally.
He was getting rid of ISIS.
He was stabilizing the Middle East.
Not completely, I'm not saying every problem, but the Abraham Accords, many people say thanks to Jared Kushner, were great.
There were great things happening under Trump.
The world was healing.
So why would Vladimir Putin invade when good things were happening?
Now, how does the left and the establishment of the U.S.
frame it?
Trump was appeasing Vladimir Putin.
Okay, let's play that game.
You mean to tell me that crushing ISIS, stopping war in Syria, was Trump playing to Putin's agenda?
Ending war?
So what do you recommend?
Are you saying that we should engage in endless conflict because Russia doesn't like it?
But I like the idea that Trump was stopping the war.
They go on to mention a bunch of historical context about the war in 1812, or, I'm sorry, the 1812 defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the Soviet Union losing 27 million people in World War II, we get it.
They go on to mention that Russia's invasion has killed thousands of people and displaced nearly 10 million.
It's an interesting argument, the idea from Russia that they waited when Hitler was attacking other countries and said, we'll just appease him, and then he invaded Russia, and then Russia had to fight back.
And so Putin's like, we're not gonna do that again.
Nah, I call shenanigans.
Yo, build up your forces, fine.
Build up your forces, but if you lose the soft power battle, you lose the soft power battle.
I suppose the reality is, it is dominoes falling over.
What would Russia do?
Do you think that Russia is gonna be like, guess we'll lose?
Nope.
Nah, they're gonna ignite the nukes.
I do believe that Russia could use small-yield strategic nuclear missiles, maybe a 100 kiloton bomb on Ukraine, and they would end this war overnight.
But the diplomatic damage would be irreparable.
At least in the long, at least in the short term.
It would take a very long time to recover from using a nuclear weapon on Ukraine.
But if Vladimir Putin really wanted to end this war, he could strike with small yield nuclear devices or tactical nuclear devices like nuclear artillery, which has a relatively high yield for what they are.
So when the media says the war is not going good for Russia, it's because Russia is holding back.
And if Russia really doesn't want to lose, you'll know it.
Sweden says the U.S.
has offered security guarantees if it applies to join NATO.
Interesting.
We have this story from the Moscow Times.
Russia violates Finnish airspace as Helsinki molds NATO.
Sweden and Finland have discussed joining NATO.
Russia has warned them not to.
Finland ramps up military exercises in case Russia threatens war.
I mean, look at this.
Russia violates Finnish airspace.
They did it to Sweden.
Sabre rattling.
Russia warns of nuclear hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO.
April 14th.
The day we learned of the Moskva sinking, or the day it happened.
From Newsweek.
Russian ambassador to US says NATO not taking nuclear war threat seriously.
I don't believe in Mutually Assured Destruction.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Now, hold on.
A lot of people said, Tim, you're wrong, it's a true thing, it's a doctrine.
No.
It's speculation, but that's what it basically is, the fear.
The fear of Mutually Assured Destruction is what makes Mutually Assured Destruction exist.
But if at any moment someone calls the bluff, and fires a strike, and then there is no retaliation, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction is done.
I do not believe that we will see nuclear missiles flying through the sky like in the movie War Games, crossing over, or like in G.I.
Joe, whichever movie you like.
I don't think so.
I think Russia is telling the U.S., and he's telling NATO, we're going to nuke you.
We're going to nuke your forces.
There's literally no reason for Russia to nuke New York City or D.C.
That makes no sense.
And that's why I've never been a fan of the idea of mutually assured destruction.
It always sounds strange.
Why would Russia nuke New York?
Seriously, give me an answer.
And don't give me a one-dimensional comic book villain answer, because Putin is evil!
Some have said, if Russia was going to lose, they would say, fine, we'll strike your urban center.
Why would they do that?
If Russia was being attacked, they would not nuke the US, they would nuke the battlefront.
They would target the military because they want to live.
Imagine it this way.
You're in a boxing match, right?
And it's all or nothing.
You better win or else you're in trouble.
And so when the guy you're fighting is about to win, you go, guess I'll punch that lady right there.
Why would you do that?
It's not helping you in any way.
You're like, well, I'm gonna lose.
I know I'm gonna lose.
Might as well punch that random woman.
Okay, I guess technically there's the argument that the bad guy knowing they're losing aims their weapon towards a civilian saying, I will hurt someone innocent unless you back off.
Perhaps.
But I think if the bad guy was holding a weapon that they were able to aim, they would just aim it at the person who was threatening them.
That is to say, if it ever got to the point where Russia was seriously threatened, they would use nukes in and around where they are being attacked from.
If the fight is in Ukraine, and NATO forces are moving through Ukraine, or even Belarus, Russia's gonna be like, fire Z missiles!
In Ukraine, where the military buildup is.
And they would probably use it to create some kind of perimeter or barrier by taking out strategic points along the way, making it very difficult for ground forces to advance on Russia.
Not to mention, Russia is so massive.
Now, there's pros and cons to this.
You got Vladivostok, which is in the far east, only like, I think, 50 miles from Japan.
Crazy, right?
And then you got the west, where it's like at St.
Petersburg, and I think that's super close to Finland.
Massive country.
You can take out key structures, but they can always safely go and shore up half a world away.
Which means it'll be harder to take out the nucleus, but it will be easier to spread thin.
Interesting predicament.
I don't think we really understand what nuclear war will look like.
We have ideas, but it's never happened.
I mean, the U.S.
has dropped gravity bombs on Japan.
Bombers come by and... But what we haven't seen is the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles at full-scale war.
We don't know what it will look like.
We don't know what weapons and capabilities have been created since then.
It has been, what, 70, 60 or so years?
60 or so years since the deployment, a little bit less, of these nuclear bombs.
You think the U.S.
has developed nothing else?
How much you want to bet we have high-powered lasers for taking out missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, at high altitude?
I bet we have satellites that have these capabilities.
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 We had something called the Strategic Defense Initiative a long time ago.
The idea was to find a way to take out nuclear missiles if they were coming our way.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
We had something called the Strategic Defense Initiative a long time ago.
The idea was to find a way to take out nuclear missiles if they were coming our way.
Perhaps like an Iron Dome defense system.
Do you think there's no Iron Dome defense system?
Okay, look, the Iron Dome in Israel, it fires missiles at missiles and takes them out in midair.
It's not perfect.
There's the THAAD system, which is thermo-something, I don't know.
South Korea has THAAD, T-H-A-A-D, which is missile interception from North Korea to South Korea.
Do you think the U.S.
did not build any missile interception systems at all?
I don't think we know what nuclear war would really look like.
And I think there's a possibility that Russia will not use nukes because the moment they do, and the West reveals its capabilities in preventing, stopping, or defending against nuclear weapons, Russia loses everything.
Their morale would collapse.
So the question is, if Russia was losing, why won't they deploy a small-yield nuclear bomb in Ukraine?
For one, I don't think they want to kill civilians.
Two, they're not completely defeated, but things are going bad because they're going up against NATO.
And three, maybe they know NATO's got ways of intercepting these things, and it would just reveal you're not nearly as powerful as you claim to be.
But I don't know.
It's entirely possible that we've developed to the point where there is no real defense.
I think about the comic book Watchmen, the graphic novel, where Dr. Manhattan, who is a superhero, says, if they fire all of their missiles and I stopped 99%, it only takes a few to get through.
And that's the reality.
If Russia fired off every single nuke they had in every possible way, we couldn't possibly stop it.
Weapons.
It used to be, back in the day, you had a sword, right?
We made chainmail armor that protected you from slashes.
And all of a sudden, like, the swords were less effective.
You had to figure out how to bypass the armor.
Bows and arrows.
And these can pretty much penetrate plate and male armor.
But, um, still harder.
So we found ways to break through the armor.
Armor used to be fairly comparable.
I mean, if you were wearing plate, it was hard to stab or slash you.
You'd basically do blunt force damage with your sword.
Granted, plate was not perfect.
Plate armor like, you know, old school armor, like medieval armor.
You could still break through it.
There were weak spots.
And the other interesting thing is I don't think people realize that it was actually not that heavy.
You know, it is heavy, but you could move fairly well in full plate armor.
But eventually, we developed gunpowder.
I mean, the Asians had it for a while.
But with the rise of muskets, it didn't seem to make sense to wear that armor that would be ripped through by a musket ball.
And perhaps that's where we are.
Well, there's a major advantage in being the attacker.
And that's what we have.
these systems when we should just put it all into offense.
And perhaps that's where we are.
A good defense is a strong offense, right?
Well there's a major advantage in being the attacker.
And that's what we have.
I don't want to spend, I got to spend a little bit more time going into what's happening
with the famine.
Because I know I mentioned it early on.
Ukraine's wheat harvest may fall by 35%, satellite images suggest.
And this is where we're at.
We have the fake news website, The Daily Beast.
The Daily Beast is literally a fake news website, as NewsGuards shows right here.
They say, proceed with caution, it fails to adhere to journalistic standards.
The right's new conspiracy theory, Kamikaze planes and food fires.
A bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory has found a prominent ally.
I'm going to mention that Tucker Carlson brought up that something strange is happening where
there's a bunch of fires at food plants. That's it. And then they call him a conspiracy theorist.
Full disclosure, TimCast.com published a terrible article about the food plant fires and I was unhappy with it.
I said it was sloppy journalism, it was terrible work, and it needed several corrections.
I still think, we've issued the corrections, but I still think it should be taken down, and so we'll probably end up taking it down.
But we got fact-checked by Snopes, of all people, and Snopes was right.
Our article was bad.
But our article wasn't asserting any conspiracy theories.
It was simply pointing out that there were fires.
The mistake we made was that our journalist included a three-year-old story, two-and-a-half-year-old story, as if it was recent.
So, there has been news about food plant fires.
You need only go to Google.
Here we go.
So, I searched for food plant fires minus conspiracy and minus arrested.
Because for some reason, when you search for food plant fires, the conspiracy theory story, I understand why that's the big one, it's politics.
But I don't care about the arguments about conspiracies, I don't care about conspiracies.
And arrested, it was because someone got arrested and involved with something unrelated to the fires.
So I said, let's just show me food processing plant fires.
One day ago, Purdue Farms.
Three weeks ago, Salinas.
Five days ago, Purdue.
So Purdue, okay, so Purdue Farms, same story, Chesapeake.
I believe that these are the same stories.
Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, this is not, these are different.
Purdue, okay, well that's weird.
There's Cedar Rapids, oh I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
There may, okay, so the first story is Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The second story is Salinas.
Then Purdue Farms, Chesapeake.
Then this story is just mentioning Cedar Rapids.
Tyson says a plant was destroyed.
There's poultry issues.
Then you've got Suffolk Fire and Rescue, a Suffolk plant fire at a Hormel factory.
Food processing plant at General Mills in Georgia.
That story's repeated.
Then the Selena story.
So some of these are repeats, but you have many of these stories.
Fire at a California food plant.
This is just right now.
Okay.
I don't play conspiracy games, I don't care for that.
I thought the story was interesting because the real issue is that we're gonna have food shortages.
Take a look at this from Vox.
Horrific bird flu that has wiped out 36 million chickens and turkeys explained.
I'm hearing reports that people are told they need to cull their chicken populations because of this bird flu, because they're trying to shut it down right away.
The idea being if we cull the latest crop of chickens, we end the bird flu in its tracks, and then we can reboot and start up.
Yo, but we're already dealing with food shortages.
So, I can't tell you.
There's some kind of conspiracy.
I can only say that when we get news about Russians facing sabotage.
Arms manufacturers, chemical plants, and military enlistment officers.
Officers, sorry, being destroyed.
Now, I can understand the military stuff, but the chemical plants?
Sabotage?
The media wants to entertain that these fires and this destruction in Russia is sabotage.
At least one instance we saw people throwing Molotovs.
We didn't see what started these fires.
Couldn't these be sabotage?
Could the U.S.
not be facing similar conflict that Russia is?
I don't know.
In the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
Occam's Razor.
In which case?
Fires happen.
And my issue with the conspiracy theory, the war theory, is that we don't actually know if fires at food plants happen with this frequency.
So maybe three years ago there's a whole bunch of fires at food plants.
Fires happen, right?
But nobody cares because there's no reason to care.
Now all of a sudden someone notices, it sparks this idea, everyone thinks there's some kind of crazy thing happening, but it's just normal.
So what we've discovered so far is that it seems there is a serious uptick in food plant fires.
There's a lot of ways to explain this.
It could be that there's a labor shortage, so infrastructure is crumbling.
That seems to be what makes the most sense.
Okay, fine, whatever.
I don't know.
I can only tell you the war is gonna get bad for everybody.
And we're wrapped up in domestic issues, which I get, because I think they're seriously important.
But for the time being, it looks like the U.S.
has involved itself directly by aiding in the sinking of a flagship.
There's food shortages coming.
I think we're getting involved in this war, ladies and gentlemen.
I think we are involved.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
A bill to classify abortion as homicide has advanced in Louisiana.
It's come out of committee.
It has to go up for a vote.
It is not yet law.
Maybe it won't be.
But this is a major move towards, in my opinion, civil war.
There's a lot of questions around this.
Homicide legally does not mean murder.
Colloquially, we use homicide to refer to an intentional killing of another person, but homicide could be involuntary manslaughter.
It could be a lot of things.
It could be malpractice.
It just means a person died because of another person.
However, considering abortions are intentional acts, This would mean that aborting a baby would be murder.
I think we are inching towards civil war with this one.
Maybe it'll be a peaceful divorce, I don't know, but back in the 1800s, we actually thought, I should say we, but the United States thought it was going to be a peaceful divorce.
No one thought war was going to break out.
Several states had already seceded from the Union and there was no war.
It was, at that point, a peaceful divorce, but Civil War, I believe, is inevitable in these circumstances.
What happens is these states secede, and then the issue of military comes up.
This is a really interesting point.
I think it was Stephen Marsh who brought it up because he wrote a book, The Next Civil War.
I talk about it quite a bit because I think it's very insightful, though I disagree with a lot of his perspective because I think he gets too much of his news and information from establishment sources.
But it does bring up really interesting historical points, and that is, Once it came to the issue of military, ain't nobody gonna give that stuff up.
So the North is like, yo, this is our military base.
And even Jefferson Davis didn't think it would be, or wasn't sure if it would be the start of a civil war.
But there's a lot to talk about.
I started thinking about personhood.
When is a person granted rights in this country?
And there's a tendency over U.S.
history to expand the umbrella of human rights to more and more groups.
Which brings me- Oh, I'll come back to that.
But it brings me to this point here.
Classifying abortion as homicide, expanding the view that a baby is, an unborn baby, is a person, and you are killing this person, expands constitutional personhood rights to the unborn baby.
Here's what happens.
I have to be careful with how I phrase this, and I typically leave this argument up on the members-only segments at TimCast.com, because it's a particularly dangerous point to be made.
But I'll just, I'll make it, it inches very very close to, let's just say it inches to the line, right?
A human being.
has what's called an affirmative defense if they kill someone in defense of others.
So self-defense is typically allowed as a defense to killing someone if you are protecting your own life or the life of someone else.
If you're outside milling about minding your own business and someone screams, I'm going to kill you and runs towards you with a hammer and then you do some kind of maneuver and finish him off in one move You're probably not even going to be charged.
I mean, assuming there are witnesses.
The witnesses are gonna see, be like, that guy threatened to kill him, and the guy was like, I'm defending myself.
Makes sense, right?
Self-defense.
If somebody went, ha, I'm going to kill you, and then ran at a woman with a hammer, and then you tackled him to the ground, and he died by hitting his head, you Likely would not be charged.
You may be charged, but you have an affirmative defense.
I was defending this woman.
She's a witness.
It's very likely that you would not be convicted.
It's tough, though, because sometimes they might argue, no, it's not true, and you never know what the prosecutor is going to say.
But there is a defense there.
There is an exception to killing someone in defense of others.
If Louisiana classifies a fetus, if they say the fetus has personhood rights, And it is a homicide.
Then there is an interesting legal question about what happens.
Let me slow down and phrase it this way.
A man is holding a baby and about to do, commit harm, serious force against that child.
Anyone would tackle that person to stop them.
But what if that person died?
What if they were holding a baby and then you were like, no, and then like, you try to stop them, so you tackle them and the baby's fine, but the person dies.
Well, yeah, you were acting in defense of that baby.
You're probably not going to go to prison for that.
They're going to say you were trying to save the life of this baby and everybody saw it happen.
But what if that baby, that same exact baby, was in a womb?
Now things get interesting, don't they?
It's the same exact, let's say the same exact life form, the same exact period of gestation.
Nine months this baby has grown in the womb, and then one baby is out of the womb, and someone seeks to cause it harm.
You would be legally, you'd have an affirmative defense to protect that baby.
What about the baby in the womb, in Colorado, where they've removed restrictions?
Well, would you still have those protections?
My point is, if we grant personhood rights to the baby, there will be something really interesting about what happens to abortion doctors who are committing what is classified as a murder and how they would be protected or not protected.
I think the end result of all of this is that abortion will be banned. I don't see, I can't see
the future, but I look to the past and look at the tendencies of humanity, particularly of the
American people, and where we end up, and we end up expanding personhood rights. Now, the reason
why I think we'll ultimately end up in civil war is because, take a look at this other story
from TimCast.com.
A pro-abortion group is planning to disrupt Catholic churches on Sunday and published home addresses of Supreme Court justices.
White House refuses to condemn activist group who posted home addresses of Supreme Court justices.
Yep, doxing libs of TikTok.
They call it stochastic terrorism.
I think the easiest way to explain it is, oh, won't someone rid me of this priest?
It's when, um, I can't remember the king who did that, but he said that and then someone went and rid him of that priest, and it was like, he was like, hey, well, I didn't want him to kill the priest, I was just exasperated, or something.
It's like, well, if you publish someone's address, You're basically hoping that someone commits an act of violence against them.
You're supplying people with what they would need to commit harm against someone.
It's a tough question.
You do have a First Amendment right to publish someone's address.
I just don't think you should.
So, can you really blame someone for being like, hey, they live here?
I think to a certain degree, culturally, yes.
I think legally, it's tougher than that.
Let's talk about where we end up.
Let me talk about the Constitution and the American people.
You know, when this country was founded, you were not guaranteed personhood.
I mean, women couldn't vote.
The men voted.
Landowners voted.
People who didn't own land didn't.
The idea here was, the men are the ones who are working.
Women are working in the homes.
Homeowners have a say in their community.
So if you didn't own property, how did we know that you actually lived here and could vote?
Sorry, if you don't own land, you couldn't vote.
Women, you're not involved in work and organization of the community.
You're involved in the home.
So therefore, why should women vote?
In fact, the idea was the man votes for his family, including the woman.
However, I do think it's funny to point out, dowries existed, right?
So it was basically like, the father would have a dowry and like, hand off wealth to the man who is acquiring his daughter.
I'm not saying it was all bad, but it certainly needed to change, right?
There were certain reasons why we had these things, I should say.
I think we've done great moving away from all of those old systems, but they arose for a reason and eventually we developed past the need for many of these systems.
Ultimately what happens is women get the right to vote.
Women are now in high levels of business and office and fiercely independent, but it's a relatively new phenomenon.
More importantly, I believe, is the issue of slavery in this country.
Slaves had no personhood.
The South was actually trying to argue that they could own a person and they should have legal personhood for voting, which is like, yeah, I don't know if you can play that game.
The North was like, you can't have slaves vote.
They just vote for what the slave owner wanted them to vote for.
Or they, it's kind of dumb, they'd vote for their freedom, I guess.
And so this is funny because typically what we hear in history is that the South didn't want slaves to vote and the North did.
And I've heard both, but my understanding, and I could be wrong about this, but I read it was actually the South that wanted slaves to be able to vote because they literally controlled those slaves.
The North said no, so they had the three-fifths compromise.
I think it's gross.
I think slavery was abhorrent.
I think it is abhorrent.
The point is, this country started, slaves did not have rights.
They were not considered people under the Constitution.
We ended up with some pretty rad dudes, like Frederick Douglass, who said, I challenge you to stand by the words you wrote, and all men are created equal.
Wow.
Bold statement.
And we had to.
Ultimately what ends up happening is, a group of people that were said to not have life rights under the Constitution, that they were property, a war was fought to give them those rights.
Women were considered people, it's not the same, and they were given constitutional rights.
The point is, typically we expand these rights.
I also want to talk about eugenics.
The eugenics movement of the early 1900s, that went away.
Because it was considered wrong, it violated the life rights of people.
This idea, eugenics back in the day, was promoting only good breeding.
Which was taken to its psychotic conclusion by Hitler.
That he was going to choose just one race that had to be... It's nuts.
Humans have a right to reproduce.
And honestly...
It is good that even dumb people reproduce.
You do not want a homogenized gene pool.
You want variety, decentralization.
It makes a species more resilient.
But this idea that we could control or restrict a person's right to reproduce was not allowed.
Ultimately, it fell by the wayside.
But remnants of it still exist in, say, Planned Parenthood.
I know a lot of people don't want to accept this, I suppose, but Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.
That is not a moral statement on today's Planned Parenthood, but it is the origins of Planned Parenthood.
Which brings me to today.
If the tendency over the history of the United States is to expand personhood rights, then I think we're going to see two things.
One, in the trans debate, you will see trans people being granted the rights to identify as they see fit, and the law must recognize that.
You will also see abortion completely banned.
The reason for this.
Unborn babies are unquestionably human.
Period.
They have the potential to grow into a fully-fledged human, because they're babies.
That's what babies do.
They have human DNA.
They have human blood and cells.
They are attached.
They're humans.
But the argument, I suppose, comes from the left as to when a baby is alive.
And they've not presented any real argument as to when a baby is live.
I've heard after birth, the 14th Amendment says when a person is born, when a person is born, I do think we will ban abortion.
I really, really do.
And the reason is, Throughout the U.S., as I mentioned, the tendency towards granting more rights, I don't see why we would move away from that.
Now, some have argued that in tort law, we were reading an amicus briefing from, I can't remember what the year was from, but I pulled up, it's from the Supreme Court, several justices argued that in 1850 to 1880, the law was that unborn babies were people under the 14th Amendment.
And that was fascinating.
That was tort law.
So it wasn't precedent, I suppose.
The law had dealt with the issue as if that were the case.
But ultimately, in the 1970s, you get Roe v. Wade, which is a woman has the right to privacy, which means she can abort.
The general idea was that if a woman is raped, that the government has no say to come in and mandate this information from them and things like that.
It's a really interesting issue.
I don't know, there's a lot more to Roe v. Wade than that, but...
The issue comes down to, you can say that you want to protect the rights of the woman, and that she has a right to choose, that I understand.
But you don't have a right to choose to kill someone.
I recently was talking to the newsroom over at TimCast and said, guys, I don't think we're going to say pro-choice or pro-life anymore.
I'm not interested in saying either term.
Those are political terms.
You're either for abortion or against abortion when we're talking about abortion.
When people on the right say they're pro-life, the left says, what about the death penalty?
Or what about the animals?
You don't care about life, you only care about- It's like, okay, okay, look.
Fair point.
Life means more than just abortion.
It's a political term.
But pro-choice?
You're not talking about choice.
You're pro-vax mandate.
You're pro-abortion.
Or you're anti-abortion.
Now, the funny thing is, being pro-abortion or anti-abortion still sounds like it's kind of biased towards the right, right?
No.
If we were gonna headline our articles in favor of the right, we would say, anti-abortion and pro-baby murder.
Anti-baby murder, pro-baby murder.
No, it's abortion.
Abortion is the issue.
But anyway.
You want to protect the rights of the woman to choose, but you do not have the right to choose to kill another person.
Because of the tendencies throughout history to grant personhood rights, because of bills like this, I think we're moving towards a human being is a human being at conception.
I do not believe there is any other logical point where you can make an argument that isn't the case.
The left has made arguments.
There's no brain function, so there's no suffering.
A person who's in a coma has life rights.
It appears that the left's argument, the traditional liberal and left argument about abortion or life is that you are granted life rights and constitutional rights when society deems it so.
I say no.
I say we are bestowed with inalienable rights.
Now, I am not pro-life.
I am not absolutely anti-abortion.
But if we were going to say pro-choice or pro-life, those are political terms, and I personally would probably fall into the pro-choice category, but probably as close to the line as you could possibly be.
If we were going to fall into the pro-abortion or anti-abortion terms in general, I would be anti-abortion.
I believe abortion is wrong, but let me clarify.
As Seamus and Matt Walsh have pointed out, I want to make sure we're being very clear on what these terms mean.
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, then I believe you terminate the pregnancy.
If a woman has a septic pregnancy or a cancerous pregnancy, I believe you terminate the pregnancy.
I don't care for semantics.
The point is maximizing good.
There are two people here.
If you can't save the baby and you have to abort, then you have to.
I don't care about your semantics.
However, I do believe in any circumstance that the pregnancy would be terminated, you should try to save the life of the baby.
But, sometimes there are issues where a woman has a pregnancy gone wrong.
There's also the question of liberty.
Now, I know people were yelling at me and Tim Castile yesterday because I said I did not agree with the state enforcing a rape victim to carry a baby.
I don't, sorry, I just, it's, you're not, I do not have that, I do not have that within me.
That the state could say, through no fault of your own, your body is now someone else's.
Or at least for the next nine months.
There are interesting questions about this argument and where it leads.
And I don't believe the argument is answered by saying, but it's your child.
That's one thing Seamus said to me.
That doesn't change the fact that the state is saying your blood now is to be given to someone else.
The other argument was, yes, but women, when they get abortions, it's mostly elective.
That does not change the fact that I am saying I do not believe the state has the right to force someone to provide their body to someone else.
Now, if you want to have an argument about choice, meaning a woman chose to allow someone to occupy their body, I completely agree.
If you allow someone into your body and now they're dependent upon you, then I don't think you have a right to just kill them.
You sort of entered into this position, and through no fault of the baby, the baby would die.
But it is your fault.
It is your choice.
It is your responsibility.
I'm pro-choice, right?
If you choose to get pregnant, you made your choice.
If you did not choose to get pregnant, I do not believe the state has a right to enforce that you carry that baby.
I just, I just can't, I know, and a lot of people, you know, it's, come on guys, they're chatting like, Tim lost the argument, I'm like, the argument is a position of morality which is either your for or against.
For me, I do not believe the state has the right in any circumstance, well I shouldn't say in any circumstance, in this particular instance of rape, to force you to carry another human being.
I do think there's an interesting question of, Choosing to have sex, getting pregnant.
The problem arises when women lie and say they were raped.
And what people say is what'll happen then is there will be many more false accusations.
I don't deny that.
I don't deny there would be negative repercussions.
I am not advocating for policy.
I am saying I don't believe the state has a right to do this.
If you want to argue bad things would occur after the fact, and so the law ends up in place.
I didn't say that was not going to happen.
I didn't say that was wrong.
My point is, if the state came to me and said, your body is now going to be provided to someone
else, I would be like, that is never, never going to happen.
But that doesn't mean I have, I am the arbiter of morality.
Ultimately, regardless of what I think should be, the end result of human history, in the United States particularly, is that we will recognize the life rights of the baby, and I think there's one simple reason why that would be the case.
In Virginia, Kathy Tran argued for abortion up to the point of labor, meaning the mother would be dilating and about to give birth to a baby which can survive on its own, and they could kill it.
That makes no sense!
There's no logic there!
Someone has to advocate for those who can't be advocated for, right?
We see this with people who are in comas.
There's legal disputes and there's someone to represent those who are incapable.
If a baby was... if there were two babies that had, from the point of conception, nine months later, but one had been delivered and one was still in the womb, why is it that you can kill one but not the other?
They're the exact same thing.
The only difference is that one didn't come out of the womb yet.
Women give birth, it's not absolute science, it's a tendency, right?
Nine months.
But sometimes it's a little late, sometimes it's a little early.
You know, you try to plan for the exact day, and sometimes they induce labor to get the exact date.
Babies can stick around for a little bit longer, or they could be in for a little bit less time.
So let's say, at eight months and three weeks, a baby is born, perfectly healthy.
And it's like, oh look at that, just a little bit early.
And it's crying, and it's living, and everyone's smiling, and they put it in a little blanket, and it's taking care of itself.
You could not harm that baby.
If you put that baby in a dumpster, you go to prison.
If you harm that baby in any way, prison.
But what happens if the baby's in your gut?
In your womb.
And you're in Virginia, where they're trying to do this.
Or, let's just be real, Colorado.
And the doctor says, time to die, and snips the neck of that baby.
For what reason is there a legal distinction between inside the womb and outside of the womb at this point?
So ultimately, I say, yes, I understand, no second trimester, no third trimester abortions.
Perhaps I think there's a compromise on first trimester abortions for the sake of, I don't know, I don't know.
Issues of culture and society.
There's no real good argument, to be completely honest.
But out of the risk of, you know, the government having the authority to impose you provide your body to someone else, the problem here is that it's unique.
That human morality, as we have it today, does not extend to... It cannot extend these ideologies to biology.
This idea that we should all be equal under the law is only possible up to the point where human biology is different.
In which case, there's no real analogy for pregnancy.
You're going to have this, you're going to have people who don't care about the kids, you're going to have people who care about the kids, and I don't know if there's any real answer.
As much as I lean towards first trimester discretion, privacy rights, but restrictions, I think elective abortion is wrong, but there's challenges in privacy rights.
It is not an easy moral position.
Regardless of that, I do believe it is inevitable, based on U.S.
history, that abortion becomes illegal.
I also think trans people will gain rights.
I think furries will gain rights.
I think, and I literally mean gain rights, I believe the state will recognize their right to a certain thing.
I believe that that's the direction we are headed in.
Maybe not.
No idea.
Maybe we'll split apart and there'll be a civil war.
But when I look at abortion, I see an issue that is not too dissimilar to slavery.
It is human beings...
Unquestionably, that are being denied their rights.
The left may take issue with that, saying you're going to compare a clump of cells to a black man that's unheard of.
Ask religious conservative black people.
There's that viral video where this black guy goes to a hospital and he says, all black lives matter, right?
And they're like, yeah.
And he's like, black men killed by black men matter, right?
And they're like, yeah.
And he goes, the black babies killed in your facility matter, right?
No one says anything.
He goes, I thought so.
Does the future of our black babies matter, right?
I thought so.
I'm not saying they're identical moral issues.
I'm saying we're dealing with an issue of a question of personhood, and I don't understand what the left's argument is for personhood out of the womb but not in the womb, even if it's the exact same gestation period.
I don't understand.
I don't know.
Whatever, man.
I don't have all the answers.
I'm not the arbiter of truth and morality.
These are just some thoughts.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Speaker 1 Missouri and Louisiana have filed lawsuits against Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Dr. Fauci
and other top ranking officials for allegedly colluding with social media companies to
suppress freedom of speech under the guise of combating misinformation. This is a bold claim
and a bit of a legal stretch, in my opinion.
But there's an actual argument here.
Now, in the actual news reporting from a local outlet, this is KRCG TV, Missouri AG sues Biden admin officials for alleged social media censorship.
They really don't give you a good argument as to why these lawsuits were filed.
In this news story, they basically say some examples were given, like the Hunter Biden laptop story and COVID theories as well.
The lawsuit then cites specific instances in which government officials made policy suggestions regarding social media platforms and vice versa.
You don't get the full story if you are to read the local news, but I will break it down for you.
I gotta say, They make a really good point for collusion, but I don't know if it can stand legally, that they will actually win this lawsuit.
But at the very least, yo, it definitely looks like some kind of government coercion on social media platforms.
The reason collusion probably fits better?
Let me give you the simple version of their lawsuit.
There are numerous instances in which stories have been suppressed that hurt Democrats.
Democrats have threatened to wield legal action, litigation against these big tech platforms, notably repealing Section 230 or changing it unless they get what they want.
Big tech platforms then took down stories that hurt Democrats.
You see the point?
Now, one may argue that Republicans also have threatened 230.
Yes, but Big Tech did not take down stories that hurt Republicans.
They amplify them.
That is the tendency.
That is the rule, not the exception.
While it's certainly the exception that there have been stories that hurt Democrats that have made it into the mainstream social media spheres, it's typically like the Hunter Biden laptop story is the best example.
Or how about people who got suspended for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, when it turns out the courts agreed, the facts agreed, Rittenhouse was defending himself, consistently upholding a left and pro-Democrat narrative.
I don't know if this lawsuit will fly.
Here's the Twitter thread from Attorney General Eric Schmidt.
This is the Missouri Attorney General who says that he's filed these suits.
In his thread, he says, the lawsuit filed today alleges that the Biden administration colluded with and pressured social media giants Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to suppress and censor free speech on topics like the Hunter Biden laptop story, the lab leak theory, and more.
Here are just a few examples included in the lawsuit that show that top-ranking government officials colluded with social media companies to censor and suppress freedom of speech.
In October 2020, after publishing an article on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop, the New York Post's main Twitter account was locked, and Twitter blocked other users from sharing the link.
The lawsuit states, Biden, his allies and those acting in concert with them falsely attacked the Hunter Biden laptop story as disinformation.
Over a year and a half later, The Washington Post and The New York Times acknowledged the truth and reliability of the story, but not before the damage was done and free speech was suppressed by Twitter and companies.
Beginning in February 2020, Facebook and other social media platforms began aggressively censoring speech about the lab leak theory, and Facebook updated its content moderation on COVID-19 to include false and debunked claims that COVID-19 was man-made or manufactured.
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is director of the NIAID-funded Gain-of-Function Research, was exchanging emails with Mark Zuckerberg regarding public messaging and the dissemination of COVID-19 information on social media.
There it is, ladies and gentlemen.
Alleged collusion, bro.
You're saying Fauci was exchanging emails with Mark Zuckerberg about censorship policies and then the information got censored?
It's right there, plain as day.
In March, March in a March 15, 2020 email, Zuckerberg proposed to coordinate with Fauci
to make sure people can get authoritative information from reliable sources and
proposed, including a video message from Fauci because people trust and want to hear from the
experts. I love to say experts in terms of Dr. Fauci, because boy, was that guy wrong.
Only after major media outlets confirmed that COVID-19 escaping from a lab is a feasible
possibility that Facebook and others stop censoring speech related to the lab like theory.
Even the Wall Street Journal writes Facebook acted in lockstep with the government, speaking to them, working with them, and censoring information.
That is a violation of 1A.
He goes on.
According to UnHerd, Facebook slapped warnings on posts related to the veracity of the Lab League theory, and Facebook itself claimed, when people saw those warning labels, 95% of the time they did not go on to view the original content.
As a candidate, Joe Biden repeatedly threatened social media companies for not doing enough to combat misinformation.
In a January 17, 2020 interview with the New York Times editorial board, then-candidate Biden stated that Section 230 of the CDA should be revoked.
According to the lawsuit, candidate Biden also threatened that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg should be subject to civil liability and even criminal prosecution for not censoring such core political speech.
I am sick of the overt corruption of these overtly evil people.
And I say evil with such vigor you'd think I was taking a dump.
Further, in or around June 2020, the Biden campaign published an open letter and online petition calling for Facebook to engage in more aggressive censorship of core political speech.
Even further, on September 28, 2020, the Biden-Harris campaign sent a letter to Facebook accusing it of propagating a storm of disinformation by failing to censor the Trump campaign's political speech, including social media political ads.
Now in office, the Biden administration continues to threaten and collude with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech.
Remember when Twitter was like, we're going to stop allowing political advertising?
Joe Biden wasn't campaigning.
I don't know exactly when that stop happened, but let me just say, Joe Biden wasn't campaigning.
He was calling a lid and hiding in the basement.
It seems like all of this was meant to be like we're being fair and saying people shouldn't be allowed political ads, but really it was hurting Donald Trump and Republicans.
Attorney General Eric Schmidt continues.
In a May 5th, 2021 press conference, Psaki stated, the president's view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation.
In the same press conference, Psaki said that President Biden supports better privacy protections and a robust antitrust program.
In a July 15th, 2021 press conference, Psaki stated, We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff.
It is right there, staring you in the face as we watch these big tech platforms destroy our speech, shut down legitimate conversations, all at the behest of the Democrats.
Psaki also said, In that press conference, the White House was coordinating directly with Facebook to censor speech.
We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.
This is huge!
Wow, man.
Additionally, in that same press conference, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory on the dangers of health misinformation, which poses an imminent and insidious threat.
Facebook responded to Murthy's advisory.
A Facebook spokesperson said the company has partnered with government experts to take aggressive action against misinformation about COVID-19.
On July 16, 2021, Psaki stated that social media companies should coordinate with each other to censor free speech.
You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others for providing misinformation.
Sickening evil people.
In a February 1, 2022 press briefing, Psaki demanded that Spotify and other platforms do more to censor disfavored speech in response to a question about Joe Rogan.
During an April 25, 2022 press briefing, Psaki reiterated threats against social media companies.
We've long talked about, and the president has long talked about, his concerns with the power of social media platforms, including Twitter and others, to spread misinformation.
As outlined in our lawsuit, it's clear that top officials in the Biden administration have colluded with social media companies to censor free speech, and we're working to hold them accountable.
Read the full petition.
Amazing.
I think more should sign on to this.
I think private individuals should sign on to this.
I think we need everyone who has an interest here and standing to be filing the same suits.
The evidence has been laid out before us.
They outright said they were in communication with these tech companies to censor speech.
The government is not allowed to do that.
It's fascinating.
We have the full lawsuit here.
Let me zoom in a bit.
The state of Missouri, the state of Louisiana, plaintiffs versus Joseph R. Biden Jr., Jennifer Renee Sackey, Vivek H. Murthy, Xavier Becerra, the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the NIAID, the CDC, and Alejandro Mayorkas.
Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, Jen Easterly, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Nina Jenkiewicz, in her official capacity, as Director of the so-called Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, when I read this initially, I'm looking through it, and I'm like, it is true.
We know they suppressed information that harmed Democrats.
We know they've made threats.
Right there, you have coercion.
But we also know, thanks to many statements they made, but also Judicial Watch, as well as other lawsuits, Democrats have gone to social media companies.
Documents have been released where they outright say, ban these people.
And the platforms do.
At least that's what's being alleged in the lawsuits.
I have to say that because I don't have, you know, I'm not party to the lawsuit, so I'm not making the allegations they are.
And for the sake of litigation, I will be careful in how I phrase things.
Let me show you where we're at in terms of the fake news, the lies, and the manipulation.
It's another story we have here.
The New York Post says Trump quietly encouraged Elon Musk to buy Twitter.
TruthSocial CEO.
Elon Musk has responded, this is false.
I've had no communication directly or indirectly with Trump, who has publicly stated that he will be exclusively on TruthSocial.
So why did the New York Post post this?
Well, apparently, they're saying the CEO of Truth Social made this statement.
Quote, President Trump, basically before Elon bought it, actually said to go and buy it because the goal of our company is really to build a community where people are in family-friendly safe environment, Devin Nunes said during an appearance on Fox Business.
Nunes, who is now running Truth Social.
That's despite the ex-president's recent public insistence he has no interest in joining Twitter.
All right.
Here's the response.
The first response that pops up for me.
Uwin Tesor says, doesn't matter if it's false.
Free speech means you can say what you want without consequences, right?
Someone responds, the consequence is if your information is false, people stop listening to you.
No, they don't stop listening.
People believe the stuff that's repeated.
All right.
Let's discuss, my friends.
Lies are free speech.
Let me say that again for you.
Lies are free speech.
Sucks, doesn't it?
However, you do have civil, a civil action you can take in the event someone lies about you.
I believe one of the biggest problems we have is with Times v. Sullivan.
I do enjoy certain protections under Times v. Sullivan, but for the most part, I'm not seeking to lie about anybody.
So it's only the liars who are really being protected by such standards.
Times v. Sullivan is the actual malice standard for defamation.
But if someone lies about you, you can sue for damages.
It's not easy.
But, it's true.
The reason why lies are free speech is that the government doesn't have the authority to determine what's true.
This is actually part of the lawsuit.
If we go over, they actually mention Falsehoods are free speech.
They say, you know, the Orwellian guise of halting disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, or whatever.
And they point out that the government doesn't have the authority to determine what is true and what isn't.
And thus, it has been determined by the Supreme Court that falsehoods are protected speech.
Let me make sure you understand this.
Lies are not good.
People lying, not good.
If someone says, the sky is green, And you say, that's a lie.
What if to this person, they have a vision problem and they see a green sky?
Or what if they're looking at Aurora Borealis, and they see green, and the sky is green, the sky is green!
Here's what happens.
Somebody sits beneath the beautiful Aurora, in a particularly bright night, and they see all the green, and they say, wow, the sky is green.
And they post it to Twitter.
The government then says, that is dangerous misinformation, because everybody knows the sky is blue.
So they banned the person's speech, because they thought it was false, not understanding the context of what was being talked about.
The government can't determine what's true.
Period.
That means, even though something may be a lie, it is protected speech.
I would certainly recommend people not lie, because lying is really, really bad.
But this is the issue.
For one, people don't understand that lies are free speech.
Jen Psaki, Joe Biden, the Democrats don't want information that hurts them, so they claim that true information are lies.
Therein lies the main point.
Hunter Biden laptop story.
Ooh, this is a really good example.
We know the Democrats have been actually talking with big tech to censor people.
We know that with the Hunter Biden laptop story, they did censor people, even the New York Post.
We know that story is true, even now acknowledged by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
We know that the Biden administration publicly stated it was fake news, that it was Russian disinformation.
That was not true.
And because of their manipulations, Because of their threats of repealing Section 230 or damaging these companies' businesses, they were able to collude to suppress information.
There's an interesting challenge here.
What if someone has got a gun to your back, and they say, do something illegal?
And if you don't, they'll hurt you.
So you do it.
In some circumstances, I'd assume in most, you're not going to be held legally responsible for that.
Which brings us to an interesting point about the big tech platforms.
Big tech platforms are allowed to censor you.
The issue is not whether or not they did anything wrong.
They're allowed to censor you.
The issue is that the Democrats did something wrong.
They coerced these companies in direct communication.
The companies agreed.
It doesn't matter if it is collusion.
What matters is that it is coercion, and the government is not allowed to coerce a private entity to suppress their speech through threats of legal action, litigation, or criminal action.
In this instance, it was, we'll pass a law hurting you.
So I think it's clear.
I think we need more people to get involved in these lawsuits, and we need to shut this down.
We need to absolutely shut it down, because it is impossible for us to function as a democratic institution, a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives, if the information being sent out is all completely fake, but at the behest of government.
If the government is going to make the threats, then they've already They've already violated the First Amendment.
The reason why the direct communication is important is that I think it's an interesting argument to say coercion, but if the government is saying we're going to pass laws, is that a direct threat?
I think so, but there's an argument there.
Now, we're all beyond that, because the Democrats went to these companies and said, do it!
And then they cut off the head of free speech on the platform.
What happened in 2016 where Twitter went from being the free speech wing of the free speech party to the censorship platform?
I think it's very obvious.
You take a look at everything presented, and now we go back in time and look at the history.
What do we have?
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube used to just be like, do your thing!
Reddit as well.
But then Donald Trump won.
Huh.
All of a sudden, after this, misinformation was the key issue.
People had to be suppressed, censored, and shut down for hate speech, for bigotry, for saying learn to code, for saying the name of a guy who works for the CIA.
His name you still can't say.
You say his name and they'll shut you down.
I think it's obvious that after Donald Trump won, powers that be, the establishment political class and the administrative state, took action against big tech platforms to suppress information that hurt their power.
This is not how the United States works, and you are losing.
Now some people think Elon Musk is in on the game!
I don't know, he's doing things I like, so I don't really care.
They throw back to this photo from 2018 of Elon Musk wearing a jacket that says Novus Ordus Secularum or something like that.
It's a New World Order in Latin.
And there's a question about, you know, everything Elon Musk is saying is just too based.
It's like too on the nose.
Uh, you know, maybe?
But it could all just be that Elon has been redpilled.
Like, when I tweet things, they're on the nose, right?
It's funny that Elon says stuff and you actually have people who like freedom saying, this is too good!
Too good for us.
Take the win.
If the worst case scenario is that Elon is part of this New World Order, or he's like, actually a part of the elitist cabal, I mean, he is the richest guy on the planet, That means we're winning.
That means we won.
If Elon Musk really was doing this just for the sake of trying to regain control of the narrative, that means we won.
That means freedom won.
That means free speech won.
So, uh, sure, I guess.
It's like Scott Pressler.
I mentioned how he goes and he cleans up.
You know, Scott Pressler was going to, like, Baltimore and cleaning up the streets.
And the left was like, he's only doing that to make Trump look good.
I'm like, oh, no.
Oh, geez.
He's making Trump look good by cleaning up the streets.
Please don't don't keep cleaning up like it's who cares?
Who cares why he's doing it?
He is making Trump supporters look good, but he doesn't really want to clean.
