NEW SCOTUS Leak Reveals Judges WILL Overturn Roe, Left Targets Judges HOMES, Civil War Fear RISING
NEW SCOTUS Leak Reveals Judges WILL Overturn Roe, Left Targets Judges HOMES, Civil War Fear RISING. Leftist Activists have already violated Federal law by protesting at Kavanaugh's home and nothing has yet been done.
Now they announced they will go to the homer of Alito.
But Clarence Thomas says they will not be bullied and according to new leaks out of the SUpreme court the conservatives justices are holding their ground and refusing to be swayed on roe v. wade and casey
As gas prices skyrocket and food shortages loom we could be heading into a second civil war.
#SCOTUS
#Roevwade
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
New leaks out of SCOTUS show conservative justices are not backing down, and they will be overturning Roe v. Wade.
The initial draft that got leaked was from February, so now it seems we have more confirmation, but who knows what will happen.
With escalating gas prices and a potential food shortage, we may be looking at civil unrest, civil strife, or maybe even civil war.
Which brings us to our next segment.
The protesters showed up to the home of Brett Kavanaugh, and are now planning on going to the home of Alito, which is illegal, and it seems like nothing will be done about it, and the violence is just escalating.
In our last segment, Elon Musk says he may die under mysterious circumstances.
Please don't die, Elon.
But many people are now bringing up theories and mentioning the Clintons, which is a bit silly, but let's talk about it.
If you like the 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.
Over this past week, we saw protests, rioting and even violence and vandalism targeting
pregnancy centers and anti abortion nonprofits over a leaked draft, an initial draft of the
Supreme Court showing that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
Now, this draft was actually from several months ago, and the official statement was, while it was a legitimate initial draft, it was not the final say, the final vote on what will happen with Roe v. Wade.
Apparently behind the scenes, Chief Justice John Roberts was talking to other justices trying to persuade them not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But, according to new leaks, it appears the conservative justices are holding their ground and are not backing down.
Several people who are not supposed to be talking to the press from within the court have told the Washington Post, or several people who have written for them, that the conservative justices will not be backing down.
Which brings us to the conspiracy theory.
Who leaked the initial draft?
Well, according to NPR and those aggregating NPR, it was in fact not the leftist justices, but the conservative ones.
The conspiracy here, the idea, was that the conservative justices wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they could have been swayed.
So one of the clerks working for one of these conservatives, a conservative clerk, leaked the initial draft to create public pressure to force the conservatives to maintain their position.
The idea being that now that it's out in the public, any change would be perceived as the court being subject to public opinion, and thus, they would lose their integrity.
It's not a completely bad idea.
The Supreme Court has no real enforcement powers, so it's typically been suggested that they're desperate to maintain credibility and legitimacy, and if they change their position now, well, they would lose it.
But this means a lot more.
It's not just about who's leaking it.
It's about the fact that both sides believe the other side did it.
The left believes it's the right who was corrupt.
They're tricking us.
It's the right saying the left was trying to create public pressure and protests to change the outcome of this decision.
Now we're hearing that not only have these far leftists and pro-abortion activists gone to the home of Brett Kavanaugh, they're planning on going to the home of Alito as well, which is a violation of federal law, as I've covered in an earlier segment.
For those listening, you'll hear that segment in a bit.
I think we're in a revolutionary time.
We are in a period of some kind of civil unrest, maybe even civil strife, or perhaps we have entered civil war.
As I read from Stephen Marsh last week when I was covering this, he writes how Jefferson Davis, I believe it was Jefferson Davis, did not know if the battle at Fort Sumter was actually the start of a civil war or just a hot contest that would fizzle out.
We don't know either.
Star Trek has a new show out, and in it they mention that January 6th was a fight for freedom and the start of a second civil war.
Now perhaps we are on the verge of that second Civil War.
Perhaps it will be exacerbated not just by the political divisions of Roe v. Wade, but also skyrocketing gas prices, record diesel prices.
It's all-time high.
Gas prices are about to break their all-time high again this year.
I believe it was $4.33 average high in March, and now we're just about to break that today, and it will likely happen, we'll see.
It's also the food shortages.
And it's also the culling of livestock, namely poultry.
When people are angry, and they are hungry, and they cannot work, and they cannot pay for gas, all of that anger will bubble up, and look for an outlet, and here it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are sitting on a powder keg of political hyperpolarization and anger.
And all of that will be exacerbated by a collapsing supply chain.
And then people will snap.
I don't know.
I'm not a psychic.
What I'm saying is, I can show you all of these dominoes are being lined up as the left cheers on going to the home of justices, as the law says they can't, but no one enforces it.
So when you combine a lack of law enforcement, disdain for the law, food shortages, gas prices going through the roof, some medicine shortages, I think we're on the verge of something particularly bad.
But maybe we can find our way out.
Far be it from me to say I can see the future.
I cannot.
Or wait, wait, no, I said that wrong.
I can't see the future.
Far be it from me to claim something will happen.
That's the right way to say it.
Otherwise, it sounded like I was saying I could see the future.
No, I can't.
I can only look at these stories and tell you what I see.
Let's do that.
Before we get started talking about the latest leaks from the Supreme Court, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support the work we do.
As a member, you will get access to exclusive segments of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
The show goes live at 8 p.m.
on YouTube, and then we have that member segment published live just after the show at 11 p.m.
But you're also keeping our journalists gainfully employed.
And we've also just added a couple of columnists with some original reporting.
We have Josie the Redhead Libertarian, who is now writing a ton Of opinion pieces talking about these issues, and I'm really excited that she was able to join.
These are great articles and we'll actually get into one as we talk about personhood and constitutional rights.
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's take a look at this first story from Mediaite.
Washington Post obtains new leaks from Supreme Court revealing conservative justices are holding the line.
This is actually interesting.
They're not leaks in the same way the previous leak was.
I mean, for the first time in history, someone within the Supreme Court, a clerk, we believe, leaked an initial draft of a ruling.
Never happened before.
I mean, this is unprecedented.
But now we have several sources speaking on the condition of anonymity from within the court.
This isn't on the same level as the other leak, but this is a leak nonetheless.
Mediaite says the Washington Post published a deep dive report on John Roberts' standing on the Supreme Court, suggesting that his clout might be waning among his fellow justices.
Roberts' authority and power might be on the decline following Politico's bombshell report of the draft decision on Roe v. Wade.
But oddly, the article itself appears to include another leak.
Which is clearly reported to have come from conservatives close to the court, who of course spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The sources are said to have told reporters about private conversations between Roberts and his fellow jurists as far back as early December.
Conversations that were almost certainly intended to stay private.
Writing for the Washington Post, Robert Barnes, Carol D. Lennig, Anne E. Merrimow report.
The leaked draft opinion is dated in February, and is almost surely obsolete now, as justices have had time to offer dissents and revisions.
But as of last week, the majority of five justices to strike row remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.
A person close to the most conservative members of the court said Roberts told his fellow jurists in a private conference in early December that he planned to uphold the state law and write an opinion that left Roe and Casey in place for now.
But the other conservatives were more interested in an opinion that overturned the precedents, the person said.
A spokeswoman for the court declined to comment, and messages extended to justices were unreturned.
Now, here's what's fascinating.
They mentioned Roberts told the fellow jurists in private that he planned to uphold the state
law and write an opinion.
But Alito is who ended up writing that opinion.
According to the Washington Post, they believe that it's actually Clarence Thomas, the longest
serving member of the court, and the only one to write that it would overturn way Ray
Rowe.
They were They write that he asserted his seniority to choose who would get the job.
In Alito's more than 16 years on the Supreme Court, he has supported every government restriction on abortion that has come before him.
Interesting.
They suggest that John Roberts has lost control of the court, and it's gone to Clarence Thomas.
Maybe.
The interesting thing here is that there is another leak.
They shouldn't be speaking to the press, but they are.
And also, the majority remains.
It seems extremely likely that Roe will be overturned.
Mediaite says, so a story about how a leak has ostensibly helped undermine Roberts' authority on the highest of the court features a leak about how Roberts privately told fellow justices what he plans to do regarding Roe v. Wade.
The leaked story comes amidst bipartisan hand-wringing and finger-pointing from progressives and conservatives absolutely convinced it was their political foes that are responsible for the leak.
The truth is that, as of now, the identity of the leaker is not known and probably won't be for a long time, if ever.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
There's an investigation. But who knows? Take a look at this. I used this story,
this version of the story on purpose. This is from N, I'm sorry, this is from The Hill.
NPR reporter says leading theory on SCOTUS leak is conservative clerk. Ah, yes.
Thank you for the aggregation.
You know, I love how this stuff cycles around like this.
NPR writes an opinion on something, The Hill picks it up, then I pick it up, and round and round we go.
I don't really blame anybody for this.
I know The Hill wants to talk about it, and so do I, so that's just the reality of news.
A clerk for conservative justice is the leading theory amid intense speculation about who released a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito showing the court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to legal affairs correspondent Nita Totenberg of NPR.
Totenberg said on ABC's This Week that the prevailing theory is that a conservative clerk released the decision in an attempt to lock in the five justices who voted to support overturning Roe as Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly attempts to pull his colleagues towards a more moderate position.
That has never, ever occurred before, Totenberg said of the leak.
That could only, in all likelihood, could have come from a justice that I think is less likely or perhaps one of the clerks.
That's fascinating.
The only one that makes sense is that it came from somebody who was afraid this majority might not hold.
I kind of agree with that.
It's hard to know for sure.
We won't know.
But considering the initial story was that Roberts wanted to poll them to uphold Roe v. Wade, It does make sense.
They could see the initial draft.
Think about it this way.
What if there was an initial draft and it looked like Roe was going to be overturned?
Roe and Casey.
So Roberts intervenes and says, no, I'm writing an opinion.
You will not vote this.
You've got to change your mind on this one.
One of the clerks heard this.
What if one of the clerks heard one of the justices that they clerked for saying, I don't know, maybe I should just vote to uphold Roe.
Maybe we can't see this country, you know, go crazy with violence.
And so the clerk was worried and thought, if we release this, they'll have no choice but to lock in this opinion.
If they change their opinion after the fact, it will appear as if they were swayed by public fear, by fear of the public, by terror.
Maybe.
I mean, seriously, consider it.
But we don't know.
We don't know.
It is all speculation.
It could be the case.
Roberts condemned the leak and ordered an investigation.
This we understand.
Now I want to talk to you about Roe v. Wade a little bit, and we have this op-ed from Josie, who is the red-headed libertarian official on Twitter, T-R-H-L.
The Property Rights of Slavery and Abortion.
If you're pro-abortion after viability and ever wondered if you would have been an abolitionist, I have some bad news for you.
It's an excellent article from Josie, and I agree with it to a great deal.
I said this last week.
I believe that the trend in this country is to expand personhood rights consistently.
That is the trend.
Almost always.
In which case, it seems likely that abortion will eventually be banned as personhood gets expanded to the unborn.
Josie writes, at the core of the abortion debate, we often hear references to slavery,
pitting the woman as the victim of an invisible enemy trying to control her, my body, my choice,
she exclaims, and so on and so forth. The goal in this latest movement is abortion to 40 weeks,
no exceptions. We know this to be the truth, the reason, and the goal because the press
secretary announced it on behalf of the President of the United States just last week.
The reason I think this story is important is because we're going to be talking about how the
country got to the point of civil war. And I think you need to understand the 14th Amendment,
the civil war, and where we are with it with Roe and Casey, the two cases that are going to be
overturned.
Josie writes, The Left believes in limitless abortion because they were told Roe demanded it.
But even Roe has a viability threshold.
So if at some point, even by the standards of Roe, women are not alone in their personhood, as Justice Blackmun, author of their opinion, wrote, How does that relate to their own personal property rights?
Well, the crux of this matter is ownership, but it's more of a, let's say, confederate view of property.
According to Roe, abortion can be limited by states at viability.
Quote, As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a state to decide that at some point in time, potential human life becomes significantly involved.
The woman's privacy is no longer sole, and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
Also, according to Roe, the 14th Right to Privacy Clause is not absolute regarding pregnancy.
To put it simply, and I'm not going to read through the whole thing.
Go to TimCast.com if you want to read it.
Roe and Casey both basically assert That at a certain point, viability plays a role, and that, or I should say, I believe Roe does, that at a certain point, there's a baby who has a life in question, and thus the state can weigh the protections of the baby.
By striking Roe and Casey, the powers officially return to the states.
Some states may try to ban the practice, and others may let you walk into a clinic at 40 weeks and say no, like Colorado.
However, you'll likely end up with a small number of the extremes and a majority of normal legislatures in the middle.
This, I think, is interesting because it goes to the 14th Amendment and personhood.
Back in the day, before the Civil War, you had one side saying that slaves did not have constitutional personhood.
They didn't have rights under the Constitution.
You had one side saying, yes, they do.
Now it wasn't just because of slavery that everyone fought.
In fact, the initial conflict wasn't slavery, it was the battle at Fort Sumter.
I mean physical conflict, kinetic conflict.
It was, we want this military base.
It's very, very different from freeing slaves.
But the issue at hand was that Southern states, as more states were admitted to the Union, wanted states to allow slavery, and Northern states didn't, and these two factions just started despising everything about the other side.
A large reason for the war, the large reason why people in the North fought was to end
slavery.
There were people like Hans Christian Haag who fought because they were abolitionists.
There were people like John Brown who were abolitionists.
It was the main issue.
But legally, as Abraham Lincoln put it, it was about preserving the Union.
And for the South, it was about defending their home.
In reality, the core split, the catalyst, the moral conflict was over slavery.
Should a group be granted personhood?
We are now experiencing effectively the same thing.
And maybe the battle will be fought over something we did not realize, but before the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Many states, I think it was 11, I could be wrong, maybe 13, had already seceded from the Union.
It was done!
But, there was a question over who gets access to these military assets.
And therein lies the big challenge for us.
According to this tweet, Tony, the Democrat voice, posts a meme.
Why do women get abortions?
She is strong, intelligent, and has thought it through and made her decision, because it is her right, because your religious beliefs don't dictate her choices, it's not your effing business, and not your concern.
It's a pie chart.
Those are all the reasons.
The interesting thing is that there actually is a list showing why women get abortions.
And I believe 92%, according to, I think it's Guttmacher Institute, is elective.
Meaning, they just opted to get one.
The left argues that's fine, up until any point.
But there is a question of when someone is granted personhood, which is why I think we're heading towards civil war.
I believe the tendency is to grant personhood rights to more people.
This includes trans people, this includes all of the LGBTQIA, And I believe it includes babies.
The difference is, granting personhood is like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the right for people to use your pronoun.
Though I do think we will see, we will see substantial increases in how trans people are viewed, protected by the state, etc., because it's actually happening.
Now, I posted a meme that said, it's a guy saying, the NPC says, who radicalized you?
And then the guy says, I'm just a normal person from 10 years ago.
The left says, aha, that proves you're a conservative, because 10 years before civil rights, they opposed civil rights, right?
Eugenics was a progressive thing.
It did not make it.
That idea is gone, but remnants still exist within the left.
Just because the left has won some things, doesn't mean they win everything.
But more importantly, it's not a question of left or right.
It's a question of expanding personhood rights.
So with Loving v. Virginia, with the Civil Rights Act, we were extending legal personhood rights to more and more people.
Same thing with the Civil War.
The bad stuff, like Jim Crow, went away.
I think abortion will likely be banned just based on these trends alone.
But there may be a civil war fought over it.
Someone, this guy Nathan tweeted, he's a former, I believe he's a former editor at the Guardian, columnist at the Guardian, says, the day Sonia Sotomayor votes to strip Americans of a core constitutional right, I will support anyone who wants to wave a sign in front of her house.
Because you can't, right?
Glenn Greenwald says liberals are now explicitly arguing that it's permissible to protest in front of a Supreme Court justice's home, if and only if, they issue a ruling that enrages liberals, and that liberals regard as a grave injustice, but not if their ruling enrages conservatives.
Because there have been many rulings by the Supreme Court which have violated a core constitutional right.
Notably, every single ruling they've made on guns.
Even, even, um...
Uh, Scalia's rulings on the limitations of gun rights.
Are we gonna go protest in front of their houses?
No, it's a violation of federal law.
This is where we are.
I don't know if I can even show these next ones.
I'm gonna, I'm gonna, we'll put them up anyway.
Wisconsin non-profit organization that opposes abortion responds to Molotov attack on their office.
Pro-abortion activists vandalize pregnancy centers in Oregon and Maryland that encourage women to keep their babies.
And now we have this.
Justice Alito thinks he can take away our rights, but our rights are fundamentally ours.
We're showing up to tell him in person.
Where?
At his house.
They didn't post the address, otherwise I would not have shown this flyer, but they are arguing to protest at this man's house tonight.
It's a violation of federal law.
From TimCast.com.
Activists at homes of Supreme Court justices have broken a federal law that is very similar to what January 6th protesters have been charged with.
I mean, it's clear.
I read it in an earlier segment, but we'll read it again.
If you were to protest in a residence occupied or used by a judge, juror, witness, etc., etc., you will be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
It's a violation of federal law.
No one's stopping them.
Let me tell you where we're going.
First, honorable shout out because it's worth pointing out, Jen Psaki has condemned this.
She tweets, POTUS strongly believes in the constitutional right to protest, but that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism.
Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.
Now, I don't see her outright saying don't go to her house, but sure.
I will mention what they said.
Mother Jones says, overturning Roe will ignite a legal civil war.
Time Magazine says, our nation is still divided along the battle lines of the civil war.
And these are both recent articles.
I don't think they're wrong.
I think we're still in many ways fighting the same civil war.
It's evolved, it's changed, but those divides have always been there.
But it's weird.
There's just a growing, growing divide.
Activists are going to the homes of Supreme Court justices, trying to persuade them through fear to change their minds.
It's a violation of the law.
But even if it weren't, it's horrifying.
It's horrifying in that people are willing to bypass legal precedent and use force, violence, and fear to get what they want.
The system has stopped working.
The left says, we won't allow it, we won't live with it, regardless of what the rules are.
And what?
We have to live by it?
Now, you don't hear me saying the right has said so.
Why?
I don't see law enforcement showing up to arrest these leftists.
I do see all the January 6th people in solitary.
Many of them, time served!
They've been locked up for so long, by the time they get their court date, they're like, okay, you're free to go.
Held six months longer than they would have been held for.
It's crazy.
What about these leftists that are going to the homes of justices?
They just keep doing it.
Where are the arrests?
It's not happening.
Maybe it will.
Maybe it will.
Maybe, maybe I will eat my words.
And the feds will show up and arrest every single one of these people.
I really doubt it, my friends.
I really, really doubt it.
So, if we're at a point where the left can break the law with impunity, as we've seen throughout the summer of love, The right can't.
How long can this system really survive?
If there's no equality under the law, there's no equality in our culture.
If people feel like their ideas will not be respected, and there will be no debate, then no debate should be had, and people will resort to other means.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
In this instance, a civil war.
Because the left is breaking the law with impunity.
The Right struggles to express their grievances without getting arrested, and they rarely ever do anyway.
When they do, and going to the Capitol was absolutely wrong, I think so, and they should be arrested, they get crushed.
Now, it's one thing to be arrested and be given a slap on the wrist.
Another thing to have your life completely destroyed, to be charged with seditious conspiracy.
It's another thing When the left gets away with doing basically the same thing.
When the women's protesters went to... I can't remember which building it was.
They shut it down.
They were inside one of the Senate buildings.
Shut it down.
No arrests, no problems.
Well, there were probably some arrests, but there were no, like, conspiracy charges.
On January 20th, 2017, when far-left extremists started laying siege to D.C.
I know, I'm being a little hyperbolic.
Torching a limousine, smashing windows, lighting garbage in the streets.
Not only were they acquitted of the conspiracy charges, the city, the jurisdiction of DC, was forced to pay millions of dollars.
It's absolutely amazing, isn't it?
Yet on the right, they'll put the boot to your throat.
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 That's the headline from May 6th.
2024 presidential election. We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial
with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's
Gas prices have climbed 13 cents over the past week and stand well above the recent low of $4.07 a gallon.
Wow!
That was the recent low.
Here comes $4.50 gas.
The recent jump in pump prices may not be done.
Gasoline futures settled at record highs on Friday.
Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, told CNN he expects retail prices will climb by another 18 to 20 cents over the next 10 to 14 days, hitting a fresh record of $4.50 a gallon.
Although nominal gas prices are near record highs, inflation-adjusted prices are not.
The national average would need to climb above $5.30 a gallon to beat the inflation-adjusted record set in 2008, according to the U.S.
Energy Information Administration.
Here's the issue with that.
People are not making much more money than then.
Wages have been fairly stagnant.
Now, under Donald Trump, wages were going up, but they are relatively stagnant.
So, if they say inflation has gone up, but you haven't seen a raise to match inflation, Then the record high price of gas is going to be a huge kick in the balls to you.
You ready for this?
US egg factory roasts alive 5.3 million chickens in avian flu cull, then fires almost every worker.
This is from 28th of April.
Yo, what?
A gruesome killing method because they found a single case of avian flu.
Well, they don't want to spread But that's not all, man.
From TimCast.com, over a half million pounds of frozen chicken is being recalled.
Now, why is this?
The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food, and Safety, FSIS, announced a recall on Monday.
The problem was discovered when the firm received a customer complaint that the RTE chicken product appeared to be undercooked.
The FSIS said in a statement, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.
Okay.
Gas prices are through the roof.
We've got pending food shortages.
They're culling chickens, and now they're re-culling chicken.
This is all-natural fire-grilled chicken.
All-natural fire-grilled chicken breast fillet with the use date by 3-5, 4-29, and some of these look the exact same.
I don't know what the difference is.
And Chef's Craft Chicken Breasts Fillet.
Ooh, it sounds so good!
Well, net food's being recalled.
I don't know how significant it is, but you add these things together.
The USDA is urging businesses and individuals to either throw the meat away or return it to where it was purchased.
As of Monday, over 37 million poultry birds have been destroyed, according to a report from Bloomberg News.
Where do you get your protein from?
I don't know how bad it's gonna get, my friends, but it really seems like it's just...
Worst than it's ever been.
I mentioned this in my earlier segment about Wallace.
You know, he got shot, right?
Old Democrat guy down in the South, segregation of schools.
What did he say?
Segregation now or whatever?
Some people look back to the assassinations and think things were worse.
But I look now at the whole.
And while you had these, what I would call acute spikes of tension, someone getting shot, we've seen those today.
I mean, you had that baseball shooting, Steve Scalise.
You had, I think Giffords was her name.
Sorry if I'm getting the name wrong.
You've had attempts.
You've had Antifa fighting with right-wing groups or whatever.
You have widespread, lower-tier, more blunt instability and political hyperpolarization.
But I'll put it this way.
You're in a boat, right?
And someone takes a pickaxe to the hull.
Wham!
And puts a hole in that hull.
That's an acute political escalation.
The water bursts through the hull.
What do you do?
You seal the hull.
It's just one hull.
It may be powerful, it may be rough, but you can seal it up.
What we're dealing now, dealing with now, in the hull of our great ship, is death by a thousand cuts.
10,000 tiny holes.
You have to plug each one individually.
But the pressure is building, and more holes are popping through by the minute.
Day by day, it's getting worse.
It's death by a thousand cuts.
No individual hole may be the most extreme.
And you'll try to plug them up as much as you can.
But can you plug them up faster than they're emerging?
Doesn't seem like it.
Seems like the inevitable course of a collapsing economy, escalating political tensions, is going to be civil war.
Even a peaceful divorce.
Let me stress this again.
In the first civil war in this country, isn't it funny I'm saying the first civil war?
In the civil war in the United States, there was, at least temporarily, a peaceful divorce.
Southern states seceded from the Union.
Virginia split in half.
And there was no war right away.
Until they said, give me that military stuff.
So what do you think's gonna happen if there is a peaceful divorce?
Someone's gonna say, you gotta give us those nukes, and the other side's gonna be like, I ain't giving you the nukes!
And they're gonna fight over them.
I hope it does not come to this point.
I hope this is just politics in this country.
But all of these things are happening around the same time.
If you were standing, holding a heavy weight, and someone whacked you in the shin, you might falter a little bit, but you're not gonna collapse.
What if 30 people came and started all whacking your legs at the same time?
You're going down.
And they may not be as strong, but it just won't stop.
It's relentless.
All of this just keeps hitting one after another.
I mean, look at this leak from SCOTUS!
Nobody saw this coming!
I've been talking about escalation of civil conflict in this country long before this happened, but this is a symptom.
The dominoes are being knocked over.
See, with all of the political tensions over the past several years escalating and escalating and escalating, eventually you'll get some Supreme Court law clerk who is a part of the escalation and just says, enough!
I will not tolerate whatever group and then they release the documents and it makes everything worse and everyone goes crazy!
All while we're dealing with a collapsing economy because nobody's gonna work together to solve these problems when they fundamentally oppose the other side's politics.
The system broke a long time ago.
And now it seems like we're watching the slow-motion collapse start to speed up and come into real time.
Maybe it was 2008.
Maybe it was 1999.
I don't know.
Maybe, from the ashes of the old, they will build the new.
But in this country, you have those who respect the Constitution and want it to persevere, and those who want to destroy it.
The one way to get rid of the U.S.
Constitution is to have a civil war.
Because then, you can create a new system.
Depending on who wins.
It does feel like, over the past several weeks, there have been tremendous victories for the freedom side.
The constitutionalist side.
I mean, everything Elon Musk is doing seems great for the United States, or for those of us that believe in freedom.
But we'll see if we can withstand the struggles and the collapse.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Over this past weekend, pro-abortion activists picketed at the homes of Supreme Court justices, which, according to a very straightforward reading of the law, is illegal.
You are not allowed to go to a courthouse or a judge's home or member of the court and picket or parade in an effort to change the results of justice or to affect the outcome of justice.
And the idea is that due process is more important than your right to protest.
So it is complicated.
I mean, we have free speech.
We have a right to assemble.
And there's an interesting question about the Founding Fathers when they were protesting against the government.
But even they recognized, like, hold on there a minute.
Like, if a judge is trying to decide something, that you probably shouldn't intimidate through protest.
And it makes sense.
You are seeking to get justice.
On this story from TimCast.com, activists at homes of Supreme Court justices have broken a federal law that is very similar to what January 6th protesters have been charged with.
My friends, when I see stories like this, it just makes me want to sing that song from Fallout, you know, the not wanting to set the world on fire.
I tweet it every so often because the general idea of singing that song is just we are heading toward some kind of Collapse, chaos, fight, civil war, whatever.
You know, we were talking to Daryl Davis on Timcast IRL last Friday, and it was an interesting conversation.
I mean, Daryl Davis is an overt identitarian, which I didn't realize, and believed in a lot of race-based policies.
That, to me, was actually interesting to realize.
But in this conversation, he mentioned Wallace getting shot, you know, segregation, schools, and all that stuff.
And this is, you know, it just made me think about the weather underground, the bombings, the death, and I have to imagine that for a lot of people who think today is worse than it's ever been, there's an interesting contrast.
Based on my view of history, I wasn't alive for any of this stuff, You know, I still think it's worse today, in many ways, than it has been in the past.
Of course, in the past, you've had assassination attempts, you've had assassinations.
In only the past several decades, I mean, people have tried to kill presidents.
It's kind of crazy.
In fact, there were some instances with Donald Trump that were really scary.
Some dude with a weapon and things like that.
And so we want none of that to happen.
We want peace.
We want conversation.
But now you have these people showing up to the homes of Supreme Court justices.
To the homes.
What I find interesting here is that this is not someone being physically harmed.
It's terrorism.
I know, I know.
People don't like throwing the T-word around, especially following 9-11, the Patriot Act.
Terror has been thrown all around to try and justify government action against people who don't like, you know, some policy or, you know, some political action or something like that.
when you start showing up to people's homes, when you start doxing them, when you swat them,
or have the bomb squad show up, the goal is to terrorize.
And while we look at the past, we can see that many people, there was violence, like the
weather underground, like I mentioned, or what happened to Wallace. I think
people realized terror is more powerful.
I remember reading about torture, and what they were saying is the fear of torture is more powerful than the torture itself.
That when you actually subject someone to pain, they adapt, they try to withstand it.
And it's happening now, you're in the moment.
And I think about that when, like, you know, getting a shot or getting an IV or something, or getting a needle, the fear, the anticipation of the pain is more powerful than the actual pain, because then once you're actually getting, you know, the shot or, you know, you're getting an IV placed or something, you're like, oh, it's not so bad, and then it's done, and you're like, yeah, okay, whatever.
So what we get is this.
The constant, incessant threat of violence against you and your family.
And that's what these pro-abortion activists are doing.
Now, of course, on Twitter, you actually have people arguing that it's a good thing.
You had a Georgetown Law professor saying, some protests are correct and aggressive tactics are allowed.
Or good or something.
No, no, no, no.
This is what you end up with.
You end up with these protesters creating a constant sense of dread and fear.
Outright attacking someone?
Well, you get security guards, and maybe you're worried maybe something will happen, but when they show up to your home, what they're saying is you're not safe.
We know where you live, and we will be here outside of your house to create an incessant, persistent, low-level dread that will weigh over you and wear down your heart.
So where is this going?
Well, we have a couple things.
In this tweet from Vince Coglianese, he says, I Shapiro tells me I've heard a rumor that Justice Alito and his family have been taken to an undisclosed location and all the others have gotten heightened 24-7 security.
This was in an interview.
Now, this is not confirmed, it's a rumor, but let me just tell you, it's a rumor that makes absolute sense.
Why would the justices not have protection after this story dropped?
Here's a story from Timcast.
Let's talk about where this goes.
The pro-abortion activists who gathered outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices on Saturday evening appear to have violated a federal statute that is very similar to the one many January 6th protesters remain held on over a year later.
The protests were organized by a group called Ruth Sentas, along with one of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's neighbors, a woman named Lacey Wooten-Hallway, though it is unclear if they were working together or both just happened to organize protests at his home at the same time.
The organization had published the home addresses of the justices earlier this week and called for people to join them to protest against the leaked opinion draft that will overturn Roe v. Wade.
And I want to pause for just a moment and talk to you about an editorial decision TimCast.com made, so you can understand.
Pro-abortion activist.
We decided, or I should say I decided, I told the newsroom, guys, I don't want to use the terms pro-choice and pro-life.
I believe those are political terms that don't actually explain what's happening on either side of this protest.
Pro-life is a political term that means anti-abortion.
Pro-life people don't like abortion.
Pro-choice is a political term that means pro-abortion.
I think to myself, what is the goal of using these political terms?
Now, the left will say pro-choice or anti-choice, as if to imply that the right are, you know, wardens of a handmaid's tale, to put women in red gowns and bonnets and force them to be broodmares for the state.
Okay, that is not the actual position of conservatives, who just view unborn babies as living entities worthy of protection and life rights, and they should not be killed.
The right.
Pro-life.
Well, what does pro-life mean?
It's the pro-life in the specific context of the baby.
But what I can't stand about either of these things is that they're just terms meant to make either side seem good in their political argument.
Anti-abortion and pro-abortion.
This is what they are arguing.
That's it.
The people who are out here, you know, they could say, arguably, like, we are pro-choice.
The choice of the woman.
And it's like, the choice of the woman to what?
It reminds me of those arguments the left often has about the Civil War, when they're like, you know, the Confederacy and the, you know, people will say, people from the South will say that it wasn't a war fought over slavery, they'll say it was a war fought over states' rights, and they go, a state's right to what?
To have slaves!
Okay, well whatever.
A woman's right to choose what?
To choose an abortion.
The right is not saying women shouldn't have a choice on anything.
They're saying you shouldn't be able to kill someone else.
So the argument makes no sense.
And pro-life?
I gotta say it.
Are you pro?
Are you what?
Do you oppose killing animals?
Are you against the death penalty?
It's pro-life in the context of abortion.
Therefore, we will just say pro-abortion or anti-abortion, because I don't care for the politicization.
I want to know what the core of the argument is.
Now, if you show up and your argument specifically is about women having a right to choose, then no one is arguing women should have a right to choose what ice cream they want to buy or who to vote for.
That is not an argument here.
They're going to say, unless justices who vote to overturn the abortion legislation change their minds, abortion laws will be handed back to the states.
Wooten Holloway, a 39-year-old teaching assistant and aftercare staffer, told the Washington Post that, if the conservative justices are considering rolling back a precedent that protects what people choose to do with their own bodies, then no home address is out of bounds.
You see, this is not the actual argument.
And so, what we have here is a straw man.
It's funny when Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports was speaking recently on his podcast and he was like, just let the woman do whatever she wants with her own body.
I mean, why are you getting involved in that?
I'm a fan of Dave Portnoy.
I think he's a cool dude.
I just think he doesn't understand the conservative argument.
I'm not saying conservatives are right or wrong.
I'm saying the conservative argument is it's not her body.
And then the left just argues a woman can choose what to do with her own body.
And then there's the question of two life forms sharing one space, and it's like, yo, the left views the unborn baby as not an entity worthy of protection, the right views it as.
That's the real argument.
The real question is, is a fetus a human being?
I gotta tell you.
The simple answer is, yeah.
I mean, at the very least, the left's argument would be, the pro-choice or, sorry, the pro-abortion argument would be that it's not, but it does have the potential to be.
So there's interesting questions.
Where do I fall?
You guys know where I fall.
I'm slightly on the pro-choice side, but I'm really disgusted by all of this.
You should not be going to judges' homes.
You should not have second and third trimester abortions.
Maybe there's exceptions for the health of the mother.
I think honestly, the right should just concede the argument on rape and incest, because there's a funny point that says despite being less than 1% of the reasons for abortions, they make up 80% of abortion arguments, and that's true.
I mean, it's a truism, it's like, you hear it a lot.
The left will be like, what about rape and incest?
And just say, you're right.
There should be an exception for that.
And that's actually my view, that if a woman is responsible, did not put herself in this position, something is forced upon her, I don't think the state can mandate that.
The argument I've heard from Seamus, for instance, and other pro-life individuals is that it's your child, though.
You should not be able to kill it.
And I'm just like, There has to be a right, like you can't force something on someone.
And I'll tell you this right away, if the pro-choicers, the pro-abortion, see I keep doing that right?
The pro-abortion crowd, if they think women have a right to choose, then men should have a right to abort financial responsibility.
I think that's 100%.
If you're saying that it's the woman's body and she gets to decide what to
do with it, the man should be allowed to make an equal decision. That is to say, if the woman, and
the left would probably love this to be completely honest, although they're arguing the inverse,
if the woman wants to say, I get to decide and the man doesn't, we're going to have to do it.
Well, shouldn't the man have the choice as well?
Shouldn't men have prejudice?
If the woman can choose to terminate the life and the man can't do anything about it, the man should be able to choose to terminate responsibility for the child, right?
Now, ultimately, I think that's just a negative place that won't actually help anybody.
And it's kind of one of those arguments where you think it's going to get these pro-abortion, you know, activists to be like, no, no, you can't do that!
When in reality, they'll probably just agree and be like, exactly, that's what we want.
You know, they want to create parentless homes.
So ultimately, I just think it ends up in a really dark place.
I won't pretend to be the arbiter of morality on abortion because I just... I can't give you all those answers.
Here's the law.
For any of those who are hearing from people who say it's not a violation of federal law, we have 18 U.S.C.A.
1507 picketing or parading, which reads, whoever with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, In the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent, uses any sound truck or similar device, or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the U.S.
of its power to punish for contempt.
It's clear.
These people are in violation of federal law.
They were in violation of federal law when they were banging on the walls to stop Kavanaugh from getting confirmed.
Although I suppose it wasn't a court proceeding.
This is different.
This is overt.
Jen Psaki says Biden has no position on pro-abortion activists posting a map of the home addresses of Supreme Court justices.
Ruth Senta says whether you're a Catholic for choice, ex-Catholic, or of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe v. Wade at or in a local Catholic church, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, let me just point something out.
I love this.
John Roberts is feckless and pathetic.
John Roberts.
They're protesting him too.
And he's actually on the side of upholding Roe v. Wade.
Yeah.
Court 6-3.
But it's a 5-4 vote.
That's my understanding.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But it's funny that he's the one who goes like, I don't want to overturn this.
And they're picketing him.
Dude.
Wake up to tribalism.
I'd like to show you something.
This is a tweet from someone on Twitter by the name of Stonewall1776 and AmericanHistoryBuffPatriot who tweeted a clip from the new Star Trek series.
Ah, you guys know I'm a big Star Trek fan, but this is actually really funny.
He tweets, this is so pathetic.
The new Star Trek show depicts what appears to be the January 6th protest leading to the end of the world and the human race as we know it.
It is stupid.
In this clip from the show, it's um, what's his name, Captain Pike?
He's talking to some alien race, I guess they have nukes or something, I didn't see the show, it's silly.
But he says, I can show you what will happen to your civilization because it happens to ours.
He says, it started with a fight for freedoms, and then, what does it show?
Amazing.
It shows Audit the Vote, January 6th, and then it shows Summer of Love, the George Floyd riots, before he goes on to say the Eugenics War.
And I'm like, that's really interesting.
That's really interesting framing.
He then talks about how it ultimately resulted in World War III.
And I'm like, let me just pause there for a minute, buddy.
How does civil rights protests in the United States result in us nuking someone else?
Very poor writing, my friends.
Come on, do a better job.
You can argue that the conflict in the U.S.
weakened it as a power in a multipolar world, resulting in a conflict that ended with the use of nuclear weapons and annihilation of good portions of the planet.
Sure.
But I do think it's funny that they show January 6th.
Now, Stonewall is criticizing this, but I think there's something else here that's actually quite humorous.
They call it a fight for freedom.
In the show, they say it started with a fight for freedom, and it shows January 6th.
A fight for freedom, huh?
That's a funny way to phrase January 6th in the media.
Why would someone look at that negatively?
I mean, I do think it's silly.
But why would someone make the assumption that it was pro-establishment?
It then says the eugenics war.
Well, we all know that January 6th, whatever it was, was a failed riot.
That some people are being charged with criminal conspiracy.
I think some people have pleaded guilty to it.
Some people are being acquitted, especially on trespassing and stuff like that, when they were leaded by cops, but we'll see how this whole thing plays out.
Suffice it to say, those that tried something on January 6th, whatever it may be, they failed.
And then you get a eugenics war.
Tell me, which political faction were the eugenicists?
Still to this day, elements of the eugenicist ideology exist within the progressive movement.
It is the right that opposes abortion.
It is the left.
Iceland, for instance.
Using modern progressive ideology, they have, they say, eliminated Down syndrome.
I believe it's Iceland that did that, right?
As if people with Down syndrome should not exist.
That's not the right's position.
The conservative or pro-anti-abortion side is not in favor of just wiping out a type of person.
Eugenics exist on the left.
So if you take a look at this, whether intentionally or not, Star Trek's created a narrative where it started with a fight for freedom, they call it, which was January 6th.
Funny way to frame it.
And as we know, January 6th was a riot.
It failed.
It accomplished nothing.
And then you get a eugenics war.
If you were to ask me what they've created a narrative as, the right loses, the left wins, the left brings about eugenics wars.
It's a TV show.
It's silly.
Maybe it's nothing.
But it's all about a reflection on the modern political sphere.
Justice Clarence Thomas says, government institutions can't be bullied.
And I believe other justices have come out and said, we're not going to be swayed by public pressure.
Thomas didn't directly address the leak of a draft opinion, but he said they won't be bullied.
His comments came amid widespread abortion rights protests across the country.
We can't, quote, we can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want.
The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that, Thomas said at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference, per Reuters.
He added that he is worried about a different attitude of the young, which he said fails to show a respect for the law that was sustained by previous generations.
I think civil war is coming.
I don't think this Twitter thread from this guy, I'm sorry, this clip from the TV show, I don't think it's wrong.
You know, I don't know about World War III or anything, but listen.
There's a viral thread where a guy says that he was in his law class and his professor said the leak was an egregious violation and a dangerous precedent for the courts.
And this guy goes, you know what's a dangerous precedent?
It's taking away the rights of women.
And the professor was like, I'm not talking politics.
I'm saying for the courts, this was really, really bad.
And he goes, you know, what's really bad is that women are facing injustice.
And the professor was like, again, it's about court proceedings.
It's a funny viral thread because the left loved it, and they were like, yeah!
The funny thing is, these are young law students.
I am warning you now, when the millennial generation takes over the courts, because they're slowly starting to, it's gonna be fascinating to see.
You're gonna get a judge, and we're already starting to see it, where someone's gonna be like, Arrested for self-defense they're in their home and someone kicks the door in and Punches their daughter in the face and then pulls out a knife and he goes stay away from my child and then bang shoots the intruder Killing him and gets arrested for it.
And then the judge is gonna be like upon reading the law It says that is an affirmative defense because this person was clearly about to harm your family but The person who was breaking into your home was an oppressed person, and you took their life.
You're gonna see courts where they're gonna say, You are a white oppressor.
And it doesn't matter what your intent was, you have no right.
So.
The lawyer may accurately argue the law, but I, the judge, reject it.
And then you're going to appeal and say this judge was wrong, and the appellate court judge is going to be like, are you challenging the wisdom of peace?
And they're going to say something like, oh, it's going to get really good.
You're going to get more John Robertses, where they're going to be like, well, the reading of the law may have been wrong.
We must take into consideration peace and stability and the importance of maintaining social order.
I mean, look, if the courts say, here's how we interpret the law, I can respect that, whether it's for or against Roe v. Wade.
If the court says, I reject outright what the law says and will issue a verdict as I see fit, That's where we're getting into trouble.
And when you hear these progressives, these cultists, who are like, women losing their rights is more dangerous than the actual court being maintained.
It's like, dude, if the court has already fallen, as it appears to have been today, with the leaking of this information for the first time in history, an initial draft being leaked, The cracks are starting to appear.
The fissure erupting in the dam.
And the water has begun to burst, and it's only a matter of time before the dam erupts, unless emergency repairs are made.
But here's my issue.
Here's what I see.
You have the large dam holding back the floodgates and cracks have started to appear in it.
Why?
Because one political faction has been attacking it and trying to damage it.
And if you get a swift response from the other side to repair the damage, the left will say, you're attacking our efforts to change the system.
Man, it's getting... I try to avoid these political terms, but it only gets more confusing.
Vandalized by the extremists on the pro-abortion side.
I'll leave it there.
Hopefully it doesn't result in continued decay, but that seems to be happening.
Next segment is coming up on this channel at 1pm.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I can only say that it feels like the world is unraveling in a sense, but it's the wrong way to express what I actually feel.
When I see the establishment crumbling all around me, I must remember to say it's the establishment that's crumbling.
I mean, we seem to be doing all right.
There's a lot of problems happening around the world.
There's war, a potential famine en route, and narratives are imploding.
And that's why it seems like everything is crumbling around, or at least for me, at least it feels like everything's crumbling.
Maybe you feel similarly.
But then again, I think about it and I'm like, no, this is just the establishment narrative failing.
Elon Musk tweets that he may die under mysterious circumstances.
Now why would this man go and do something like this?
Fox News says Elon Musk sets internet on fire with cryptic tweet about dying under mysterious circumstances.
Some suggested the Tesla CEO's cryptic tweet about death under mysterious circumstances might be referring to the Clintons.
But it seems Musk is likely more worried about Russia.
Okay, well that's an opinion, Fox News.
Maybe you should label this an opinion piece if you're gonna put an opinion in there, but okay, okay, I'm nitpicking.
I don't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, he could be talking about either.
A lot of people are acting like because Elon Musk has defied the establishment with such rigor and power, certainly they cannot let this stand.
And then I start to wonder about conspiracy theories becoming conspiracy fact.
Bill Gates coming out and talking about COVID and what we've only recently learned.
It's funny.
Listen to what Bill Gates says.
He's talking about COVID in such a way that everybody on the right was basically already saying a year and a half ago.
Give it six months and these conspiracy theories turn into conspiracy fact.
Specific example, Alex Jones last year talking about a major war coming in February.
And then when the war breaks out in Eastern Europe, everyone's like, hey, wait a minute, Alex Jones said that was going to happen.
You know, Alex was saying that it was public record, it was a matter of public record that the things that were popping up in the news, statements being made by people, it seemed fairly obvious the war was coming.
And this is what I think happens.
For someone like me, for someone like Alex, I certainly think Alex has his more wacky ideas.
But I think what happens is the average person is not reading the news.
They don't know what's going on.
They hear secondhand or from memes.
But for people like us, maybe many of you, for people like me and people like Alex, we read all of the breaking news as it's coming out.
And then it becomes obvious.
One plus one equals two.
Two and one is three.
So when we see stories saying Russian troops are building up on the border with Ukraine, when you see stories like a tank production is increasing or whatever, I'm not saying that story specifically.
You're like, sounds like a war's gonna break out.
I have a magazine from 1944, March.
Life Magazine.
Only a few months before D-Day.
And it's got a bunch of photos of the U.S.
Army in Britain.
And it's like the U.S.
is staging in Britain to prevent, in the event that Germany invades.
Boy, was that wrong.
No, we were staging in Britain, planning for an invasion of Europe as a counter-offensive.
Amazing.
But at the time, the media published lies.
Why did they publish lies?
Well, it's the war effort.
They didn't want to leak crucial information that could stop us from winning that war.
And that's the crazy thing.
So let's talk about what's going on with Elon Musk and the narrative unraveling.
The fact that people are entertaining this idea that the Clintons are involved in some way, that's the meme.
The fact that there is a meme about Hillary Clinton killing people, which is crazy and hilarious.
And the fact that Elon Musk is tweeting, he might die.
It's just like, are we really at the point where the world's richest man is entertaining the possibility of a conspiracy to kill him?
And people are like, yeah, maybe.
Shout out to a tweet from Chris Ragon.
When Epstein was Epsteined.
That's the verb now.
He gets into an Uber, he tweets about it, and the first thing the Uber driver does is turn around and go, yo, that guy didn't kill himself.
That was amazing.
Regular people were like, no way, dude, something crazy is going on.
And here we are, and we don't know about it.
We know a little bit.
But I always like to joke, and perhaps not really joke, that there's some dude in the CIA office, or NSA office, and they're like sitting back, vaping, or, you know, normally I'd say smoking a cigar, but I guess we're in the vaping age now.
And they're listening to this show, and they're laughing like, ah, so naive.
If only you really knew, Tim Pool, if only you really knew.
People with clearance are sitting back, and then, you know, I imagine there's a couple guys, and there's one guy watching this video right now, and his friend goes, you watched that crap?
He's like, yeah, you know, it's alright, his opinions are good.
And they're like, yeah, but he's wrong about everything, and we know it because we actually have access to documents about what's really going on.
Yeah, what's really going on, huh?
We're just on the outside.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk ignited a firestorm on social media by suggesting that he might die under mysterious circumstances, while some on Twitter rushed to the conclusion that he might fear the Clintons.
Why?
Like, what is Elon doing with the Clintons?
Look, When people are like, did you know that a bodyguard who worked for the Clintons had a heart attack?
Or that a guy investigating the Clintons was found dead of a gunshot wound or whatever.
I don't know.
I'm not saying those are real stories.
I'm like, I can understand why someone would come up with a conspiracy theory about the Clintons because someone near them lost their life.
But like, we get to the point that Elon Musk is worried about Russia and tweets about Russia and the threats against him from Russia, and people jump to the Clintons.
I'd like to point something out to everybody.
Look, people like to share this big thing about the mysterious circumstances around which people around the Clintons have died.
And I want to make sure you understand something.
I don't like conspiracy theories.
Bring me some evidence.
People say, look at all these mysterious deaths.
I say two things.
First, make me a list of the deaths around any prominent individual as a control, and then show me there's anomalous data.
Then we can start from there.
Next, show me the amount of deaths around any equal political figure and family, and then we can move forward from there.
What I mean to say is, the first thing you gotta do whenever you hear these stories about, like, look at all the people around the Clintons who have died.
Okay.
Pull up any famous person and do a deep dive into their life and see if there are similar deaths.
Now that's just a prominent person.
The next thing you want to do is take a look at a comparable political influence.
I think I think when people are, like, jumping the gun on the Clinton thing with the conspiracies about, you know, people dying around them, I'm like, dude, you may see a higher propensity for mortality, but it could be politics, not the Clintons.
What I mean is, many of these people aren't just involved with the Clintons.
These bodyguards work for other people as well.
It's like, this guy was running this company, and he was working with the Clintons.
Like, yeah, what other companies was he working with?
If you're talking about high-level global politics, it might not be unique to the Clintons.
That is to say, I do not like Hillary Clinton.
I do not trust her.
I think the Clintons are just awful people outright.
I have some serious questions about what the Clinton Foundation was doing in certain parts of the world and money they were accepting from certain countries while Hillary Clinton was working for government.
That being said, You always gotta take these conspiracy theories with a grain of salt.
You always gotta be careful because if you walk up to somebody who has no idea what's going on in the world, someone totally uninitiated, and you say that they're turning the frickin' frogs gay or something, they're gonna think you're nuts.
But then if you go to them and say, you ever hear of this Atrazine thing?
It's this pesticide?
Let me pull this up for you, and then you show them something like NPR, and it's like, then you show them Alex Jones yelling to turn the frogs gay, they're gonna understand the context.
Otherwise, if you just show them the frogs thing, they're gonna be like, wow, that guy's crazy.
Remember I was talking with someone at a party.
And I was talking with someone, I mentioned that China was taking DNA from the COVID test or something like that.
And then someone else was like, oh, that is not true.
You can't just say these things.
And I'm like, let me get my phone for you.
And I pulled up the store and I said, here you go, read it.
NPR, that a Chinese firm was taking the data from COVID tests and collecting information on DNA.
And I'm like, I don't know, maybe NPR's wrong about that.
All I know is NPR reported it.
Something to that effect.
Because, you know, for me in the conversation I was having, I knew the person I was talking to was initiated.
They had heard enough to understand the context of what I was saying, but the person who wasn't was just thinking we were nuts.
Now, here's the NPR article.
Musk's mother May Musk responded, that's not funny.
Sorry, I will do my best to stay alive.
Please, Elon Musk, please stay alive.
Yo, I don't... Let me tell you guys something.
One of the biggest challenges, security.
I was talking to Ian recently and he was like, never talk about security stuff.
And I was like, yeah, mostly we don't, sometimes we have to.
We don't want to reveal certain information.
But sometimes we have to like, inform people as to why a thing happened.
And this is a real challenge.
You know, security is a very serious issue.
Elon Musk, arguably one of the most famous, most powerful men in the world.
The sword of Damocles above this man's head must be massive!
And I could not imagine what he has to do to live to live.
We've had to dramatically increase security consistently.
I'm not going to explain the full range of security we've done, but people still think they can try and come here despite the death threats, the swattings, the bombings.
I'm sorry, the bomb squad showing up.
No one blew up.
I can't imagine what Elon Musk is going through.
I don't know if the average person really understands the security issues and threats.
Just imagine it this way.
Seriously, imagine someone coming to your house, the police are showing up, SWAT teams, I shouldn't say SWAT teams, but like armed cops with guns showing up to your personal residence, because this happened more than once to us, and then people think they can come into your home and place of work, unannounced and uninvited, Dangerous stuff.
I don't know how Elon Musk deals with this, you know, so mysterious certain circumstances.
Others referenced a tweet from John McAfee on October 15th in which the computer programmer
said that he had no intentions of committing suicide.
I am content and here I have friends, the food is good, all is well.
Know that if I hang myself a la Epstein it will be no fault of mine and then sure enough what
happened. Shortly before his cryptic tweet, the Tesla CEO sent a message from Dmitry Rogozin,
a former deputy prime minister of Russia who sent a statement to Russian media condemning
Musk's Starlink satellite company for enabling the Nazi Azov battalion.
From the testimony of the captured commander of the 35th Marine Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Colonel Dmitry Kormyankov It turns out that the internet terminals of Elon Musk's Starlink satellite were delivered to the militants of the Nazi Azov Battalion and the Ukrainian Marines in Mariupol by military helicopters, according to a translation Musk posted on Twitter.
According to our information, the delivery of Starlink equipment was carried out by the Pentagon.
Elon Musk, thus, is involved in supplying the fascist forces in Ukraine with military communication equipment.
And for this, Elon, you will be held accountable like an adult, no matter how much you'll play the fool.
Interesting.
I think this is what Elon Musk was really referring to, to be completely honest.
They're going to mention the Azov battalion, blah, blah, blah.
The Ukrainians deny that there are Nazis.
Many point out that there are many Nazis involved.
Elon Musk.
In response, Mohammed Al Misahal, probably pronouncing that wrong, forgive me, said, you won't die before your day, Elon.
Anyhow, you are and were a unique figure in this world.
I'm only wondering one thing, as a genius, haven't you found out that there is a great creator of this world yet?
If you did, make sure you confess this before your last heartbeat.
Bless you.
Elon responds, thank you for the blessing, but I'm okay with going to hell, if that is indeed my destination, since the vast majority of all humans ever born will be there.
I don't know which religion you're referring to, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
I'm not a religious scholar or expert, but I'm pretty sure the question of everyone else before Christianity or the Abrahamic religions has already been answered.
I was talking to Seamus about it.
There was some, like, great event or something that happened where people were forgiven?
I don't know.
Maybe something to do with Jesus.
Most of you who are probably more religious probably understand much better than I. But I do find it fascinating because Elon Musk has talked about simulation theory in the past.
Certainly you can recognize that simulation theory talks about a great creator.
Anyway, you know what I do find fascinating just because this is coming up?
Is the idea of judgment.
I was watching Marvel's Moon Knight, and they mentioned Egyptian lore.
It's like big Egyptian lore.
And there's the Realm of Duat, which is where people go when they die on the journey to the Field of Reeds or whatever.
I don't know a whole lot about any of this stuff, but the general idea is that in Egyptian mythology or religion, when you died, your heart had to be balanced against a feather.
And if it didn't, then you were condemned or something.
Judgment.
I just find it interesting that judgment is a persistent theme among so many religions.
Even those who don't believe in the afterlife, they believe in some kind of karma.
Some kind of, you know, you get what you give back.
And it's really fascinating.
I wonder.
I really, really do.
The challenge with the idea of karma is knowing what is good and what is evil.
There are some things I think to be universally good and some things I think are universally evil.
I believe life is the organization of free energy, the taking of free energy and making complex systems and growing.
That's what life does.
I wonder if that is our mission.
And if you defy that mission, or are a contributor to entropy in a greater sense than ectropy, negative entropy, then maybe that is evil.
I don't know.
Hard to quantify.
I think you just typically want to do good.
But let's talk about what Elon Musk is doing on other fronts as to why people might think that someone's out to get him.
It's not just Starlink, but I think Starlink is probably the real reason Elon Musk is talking about maybe losing his life.
We have this story from Fortune.
Job interest in Twitter skyrocketed more than 250% since Elon Musk moved to take over, but current employees are nervous.
Ah yes, the upending of the establishment.
Elon, it ain't just the Russians that are mad at you.
It's the establishment, too.
The powers that be don't like the idea that Elon Musk will be taking over their narrative control device.
And, uh, maybe that's where something bad might happen.
Elon Musk, what?
He's gonna lose all of the woke employees?
And then he's going to bring on a bunch of non-woke employees?
Hmm.
We'll see.
We will.
But I also have to wonder this.
Could it be, my friends, that Elon Musk is not an anti-establishment figure, but that he's just so conveniently based, as it were?
I mean, think about it.
He did send those Starlink satellites to Ukraine, and if it really was that these satellite dish receivers were dispersed by the Pentagon, could it be that Elon is actually assisting the establishment with their war?
Could it be that Elon Musk is just conveniently based to catch, as it were, the runaway populist movement?
I think this way.
You get the populists, the Trump supporters, even on the left.
The left was easily corralled.
Look at Bernie Sanders.
Look at AOC.
But the right was not.
We protest, saith these right-wing nationalist populists.
And the narrative is spreading.
It's growing.
It's working.
And the establishment can't contain it.
They've tried everything.
They've tried censoring, banning.
Doesn't work.
You cannot contain the rapid spread of information as much as they would like to.
Then along comes an Elon Musk.
Elon Musk starts saying all of the best things.
Like a pied piper, everyone flocks to him and says, we like this.
Elon Musk then captures the leadership, a leadership position.
Trump is banned.
Elon emerges.
Elon trolls, says funny things.
People start saying, yes, this is what we like.
And then Elon does say he wants it to be the left and the right are both fairly upset.
That were the case, Twitter would be run exactly as it's run now.
So maybe what they're doing is kind of like solving a Chinese finger trap problem.
You have these finger traps, you pull as hard as you can, you can't escape.
You have to give a little.
You give a little before you can free yourself.
May seem counterintuitive.
So, perhaps Elon Musk is an establishment player.
He's got his factories in Shanghai, his Tesla plants in China.
He's praised China to a certain degree in the past.
He's delivering satellites to, apparently his satellites, I shouldn't say he is, reportedly being delivered to Ukrainian military forces.
Maybe not.
Either way, he's supplying Ukraine with his communication devices, which I agree with, I don't disagree with.
But if it's really going for military purposes, that's interesting.
And maybe what's happening is that Elon Musk is the establishment's attempt to give a little to then free themselves of this problem.
We'll see.
I think in the end, I'm not interested in the U.S.
collapsing.
I'm not interested in Russia winning.
I am interested in free speech.
If the establishment recognizes they have to give up on these positions to avert a long fall, that means we've won.
I think everybody wants to see the U.S.
survive.
Everybody wants to see free speech.
And if the powers that be recognize maintaining control and power, the only way to do it is to give back free speech, free up these systems, well then so be it.
I don't know what Elon's on about or what his plans are, and I can't read his mind.
He's just doing good things.
So all that matters is no matter what happens, he better keep doing good things.
If he does bad things, we'll call them out.
He wants to praise China, we'll call out the bad things.
Here's something he said recently.
Mike Cernovich said, Here you go, Elon Musk.
When Twitter employees invariably lie to you about enforcement policy, maybe they can explain why a verified account is allowed to incite terror without any care in the world about being banned.
Elon Musk says, Twitter obviously has a strong left-wing bias.
Very interesting.
Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates.
If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so.
Otherwise, it should be allowed.
Candace Owens responded, this is how it should be done.
Why on earth any person can tweet about something about the election being rigged without having their account suspended makes entirely no sense in a society governed by free speech.
It's interesting.
You should also be able to tweet that you do not believe the election was rigged, that you believe abortion should be banned, that it should be allowed up to nine months.
I think that's how free speech used to work.
Yeah.
And we should be allowed to push back, challenge it, and have those debates and those arguments.
The problem is, the powers that be thought they could contain conversations, but they could not.
Because they'll exist somewhere.
The internet exists.
There are these apps you can get where you turn on Bluetooth and then you're off Wi-Fi or cell networks.
You can transmit information through a mesh network of phones.
I was on a cruise once.
Cruise had no cell service.
Cruise had no Wi-Fi.
Kind of crazy, right?
You were just cut off.
Everyone said before you got on, before they departed, to download this app.
I forgot which app it was.
Then turn on your Bluetooth.
What would happen is, I would send a message to Bill.
My message was encrypted, and it would hit every single device.
Every device would store that tiny piece of data, but couldn't unencrypt it.
But Bill's phone could, because it had the proper key, and then Bill would get the message.
So as long as everyone on the ship was using the app, you could message people as if you had cell service.
Amazing.
Can't stop it.
You cannot stop people from communicating.
These mesh networks will be built.
Elon!
Perhaps it's time to hire a food taster.
I've long thought about this too.
I've heard rumors that Donald Trump is a germaphobe and he likes eating fast food.
A lot of people said that Trump mostly only eats fast food because he's concerned about standards.
I think maybe it's because he's concerned about being poisoned.
No, seriously.
He's one of the most powerful men in the world.
Think about it.
You go to McDonald's, and you can see the burger's already been made.
Say, that burger and those fries.
Now you know they couldn't have tampered with it.
You go to a dine-in restaurant, they make your food to order, and you don't know what's been done to that food.
Perhaps one thing you can do is always have a random person come in and order for you, and then you show up 20 minutes later, eat whatever they ordered.
A food taster isn't even a guarantee.
Back in the day, there was concern about poison.
So what, the food taster would eat a portion of the king's meal and then wait 45 minutes to an hour?
What about polonium?
Some of these things are not fast acting.
I don't know- I don't know what you deal with.
I don't know how you deal with this stuff.
Somebody wants to poison you, they will.
Scary times, man.
You know, I- I- I- I- and... As much as I'm not really concerned about this, think about it this way.
We've been swatted, I think, eight times, and we've had one instance where the bomb squad showed up.
My personal home has had multiple armed officers with rifles coming to the house and sweeping it.
It's crazy.
What happens if I go out to eat at a restaurant and the person who's cooking is one of these lunatics and he sees me and he's like, now's my chance?
Yup.
Any day.
You never know.
So it's always interesting when I go somewhere and someone knows who I am.
People, you know, I've met a lot of really great people who shake my hand and say they're big fans of the show.
They hook me up, they help me out, I really do appreciate it.
But I never know if the person who recognizes me likes or doesn't like me.
I think the reality is that 99% of people do, who watch my show, do like it.
And these far-left weirdos are few and far between and kind of obvious to spot out.
But what if I go to a restaurant in a city and someone sees me and they're like, dude, so they spit in my food at the very least?
No idea, man.
So maybe.
I have to take my security concerns very seriously.
I think Elon Musk is at a greater risk than I am, but even Elon Musk hasn't been swatted as many times as I have.
