Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #224 - Capitol Officer Story Was FAKE NEWS, NYT Corrects Huge Bombshell w/ Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: February 16, 2021

Tim, Luke, and Lydia host Will Chamberlain and Jordan Lancaster to discuss the NYT retraction of the tragic Brian Sicknick story, the Democrat impeachment evidence doctoring, Nancy Pelosi's 9/11 style commission, Biden's potential gun restrictions, and the ammo company fighting back against Biden voters. Support the show (http://Timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's one of the biggest stories coming out of the January 6th riots, the loss of life for Officer Sicknick. It's a sad story. And, you know, my respect and condolences to his family. But it looks like now the New York Times has essentially retracted the claims they made early on that this officer died due to essentially blunt force trauma to the head from a fire extinguisher. Now, as soon as impeachment is over, they basically come out and retract it, saying,

actually, that didn't happen. And the official reporting from local news is that, or I don't know which, I don't think it's the U.S. D.C. local news. I think it was out of Houston. But they reported, the man died of an unrelated stroke. This was the big story, that violent and angry Trump supporters brutally and mercilessly beat this cop and ultimately killed him. And it was one of the biggest arguments in the impeachment. It just was not true. So I can't say I'm surprised,

but I do feel a little disappointed in myself because I believed it too. I mean, we talked about it several times on the show and it was just a whole lot of BS. So we'll talk basically about this a little bit about impeachment, the doctoring of evidence in the impeachment trial, which I believe ultimately led to the whole thing just spiraling out of control and collapsing. And we got some other news too. Biden has gone pretty hard in favor of gun control, which most of us already knew he was going to do, but he's made the official call. And we do have HR 127 now preparing to enter committee, which is a pretty drastic gun control legislation. So we'll talk about this and a bunch of other things. We've got two guests

tonight. Joining us, of course, once again, is Will Chamberlain. Good to see you. So who are you? What are you doing here? Well, I'm the co-publisher of Human Events, and I'm also senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, which fights against the abuses of big tech, as well as the Article 3 Project, which was dedicated to getting Trump's justices confirmed. Now, I think we're a little more about opposing Biden's judges. But so those are that's sort of my general work. You're also fighting for social media access as a civil right. That's correct.

I mean, that's part of my work at Internet Accountability Project. I mean, I've long said I think it should be conceptualized, the ability to use Facebook and Twitter as a civil right. Well, Parler's back, so that's more big news. Yeah. I mean, good question about whether people will come back. I mean, I, well, I made two parlays. Is that what it is? Two parlays? And

then the site got hugged to death. So I think they don't have the capacity they once did. You know, back when they were on Amazon, they had all this capacity. Now, everybody rushes back in when when the news breaks and then the site can't handle it. Right. Exactly. Which is why maybe Amazon shouldn't be able to do that. Yeah.

I agree. So we have another guest. But Will, why don't you introduce our other guest? Well, my lovely fiance is joining us on the podcast. Jordan Lancaster is a reporter at the Daily Call. And much more savage than me on Twitter. Yeah. She's great. You want to just give us a brief intro?

What do you do? I'm a reporter at The Daily Caller. I just pretty much write about everything, breaking news, politics. Yeah, go on social media, tweet too much. That's pretty much it. Simple enough. Yeah.

And we also got Luke Rutkowski, as per usual. Brutal on Twitter, by the way. Yes, I love it. Simple enough. And we also got Luke Rudkowski, as per usual. Brutal on Twitter, by the way. Yes, I love it. Also, Tim, Tim, what does the government do once it disarms its citizenry? Gulags. No, whatever they want. Welcome back, beautiful and amazing human beings. My name is Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange.org.

I am your humble t-shirt vendor, and you can purchase the t-shirts that I wear on this shirt on this show. Another Floridian slip on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. Thebestpoliticalshirts.com. Thanks so much for supporting me. What did you just say? Floridian slip. Floridian slip? Like a mix of Freud and Foucault. Yeah, it's a mix.

It's quite the fusion. It's 5D trickery here. That's true. He made everybody remember his phrase. You know they used to do these advertisements back in the day that were almost like optical illusions. A good example is there was a picture of a girl on a swing with three legs. The idea was that when you're flipping the page of the magazine,

your brain would notice this oddity, but you wouldn't think twice, but then your brain would remember it. So they would purposefully make these weird images that people would be like, that's weird, what are they doing? Like the three legs? That's what Luke's doing. He's trying to manipulate.

And it would grab your attention now you're going to be talking about it. That's right. Yeah. Well, let me grab your attention for a minute, my friends. Before we get into all that news talk, go to timcast.com and become a member. We've got a ton of exclusive podcast segments

and even a few full episodes. The latest we did, we talked about new FOIA document proving the US has alien technology and crazy metamaterials, at least according to a UFO expert. So a lot of fun there. And then we've got another segment with Matt Brainerd. He's the guy who ran the Voter Integrity Project, and he talked to us about his upcoming report on illegal ballots in Georgia. And he made a pretty bold statement, which we'll leave that segment. That whole news will be coming out in the next week or so. But for members, you can go check it out. And being a member helps support the channel in the event that we get banned because we

talk about things that, you know, they basically ban people for. It may come soon. By being a member, you'll be able to access all of our content in the event we get wiped out. That's where we will be. But that being said, let's jump to the big news story. It really breaks my heart. The National Review reports, the Times corrects the record on Officer Sicknick's death, sort of. The gist of the story, the officer who lost his life, it was an unrelated stroke. They say, a few days ago, the New York Times quietly, quietly updated its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6th riot. According to the update, quote, new information has emerged regarding the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided

by officials close to the Capitol Police. They say, as I detailed in a column last week, what the Times calls new information actually began emerging the same day the paper filed its January 8th report. More importantly, they initially said law enforcement sources. Now they're saying officials close to the Capitol Police. What is that? Muriel Bowser, the D.C. mayor? Could it be like a homeless guy who's next to the police department? That's one thing I always pointed out when they say close to. What does that even mean? Well, they say official, I suppose. So at least it's somebody who's working. They say that report was and still is entitled Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage. It was not the only such Times report from that day. There was another entitled,

quote, He dreamed of being a police officer, then was killed by a pro-Trump mob, in which the Times assert asserted on Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked the Citadel of Democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening. But they mention, KHOU reported he had died from a stroke. The story made no mention of the officer being struck by a fire extinguisher. It did claim, however, that the stroke occurred at the Capitol during the riots.

And a caption under the officer's photograph stated that he died of injuries sustained during the riot at the Capitol. Isn't it amazing how they do that? Check this out. We have the actual article from KHOU11. U.S. Capitol Police Officer on Life Support Dies After Suffering Stroke Following Riots, Union Chair Said. This is from January 8th. How is, how is, how, I mean, I gotta be honest.

How did, how did I miss this? I mean, this story's old. Yet this was one of the big aspects of the whole impeachment process. The officer who lost his life, they did this big event where they brought him into the Capitol building to lay him to rest. Should we be surprised by this? No, not at all. I mean, the New York Times went into detail. They talked about a bloody head, blunt force trauma, critical condition, rushed to the hospital.

And now we're finding out all of that. What was that based on? Absolutely nothing. Where's the responsibility? Where's the responsibility? Where's the accountability? YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, go after these people for knowingly spreading fake news. If you're going to apply this against the average Joe, your independent media, apply it to them. Whenever there's anonymous sources, I always say there's always reason to be skeptical. And they use anonymous sources. There was videos showing a fire extinguisher

flying around. But imagine being a reporter at the New York Times, right? And then just totally fabricating this story. I mean, they're talking about their two sources. Who are their sources? You know, they should be revealed. They should burn them, right? Like their sources lied to them. So either they're okay with that being lied to about what's effectively blood libel, right?

You're accusing a political movement of murder falsely. I have some break. Or they did what the mainstream media usually does, and they fabricate and make up sources that are not there at all. So they do this a lot in the mainstream media. So go ahead. I have breaking news. It is now confirmed to me from a source close to Nancy Pelosi's office in San Francisco that she is in fact a fascist

who is uh you know selling us out to massive corporations and and she is personally taking bribes from others close to her office now this source close to her office is a homeless guy in the alley you know behind her building and he seems to be a bit out of it you know I think he's not getting his proper medication. You see the point I'm trying to make? Yeah. Clever word. Obviously, I don't have any confirmation on Nancy Pelosi being corrupt or whatever.

Well, actually, I mean, just read the news and you might come to that conclusion. The point I'm making is this kind of stuff happens all the time. And the New York Times lies all the time. And I just it's funny that the story came out a month and a half ago. And the New York Times only just now updating it. And it's not that the story came out a month and a half ago and the New York Times only just now updating it. And it's not even admitting fault. It's just saying, well, there's other sources saying something different. Like you would think that you'd be able to confirm or deny the story about him being the victim of blunt force trauma. That's either true or it's not.

And a month after his death, we would know the answer to that question. The crazy thing is that I got to be honest. I think a lot of us missed this. I particularly missed it. And it's because we don't read local news. Local news is hurting really bad. Their ad rates are drying up and people are sending their money to the New York Times. So it really is true that we need good journalists to help us understand what's going on right now. Well, just going on in general. And because local news is suffering, more and more people want the national story. More and more people are attracted to the orange man bad narrative. They ignore what's happening around them. Then you have these smaller outlets who actually reach out to the union, find out what really happened. And how is it that we've now gone into an impeachment a month later with this

narrative? Like when they when they laid Officer Sicknick to rest in the Capitol, it was well after it was reported. He just died from a stroke. So remember when this first happened and we were talking about it and somebody in the chat was like, he's actually not dead yet. We're like, he has already died. That's right. What was first reported was that he was gone like as soon as this happened. And that right from the get go, it was inconsistent what they were talking about whether he was actually gone or not and they couldn't make up their minds he was on life support yeah i mean this is supposed to be the paper of record if

they if the journalist isn't willing to burn their anonymous sources the journalist should be fired like i mean you're trying to i don't know i mean it's just it's it's it's we shouldn't be surprised that the new york times is media matters but like it still is, it still is actually kind of infuriating that they can't even maintain the pretense. Another thing we have to understand here, this was a very important emotional talking point. We saw a lot of mainstream media figures and also politicians talk about the officer that was beat with a fire extinguisher over its head until he was dead. Beat bloody with a fire extinguisher over and over. Psychological kind of operation, some people would say, to push the bigger point that, look how horrible, how evil these people are.

When in reality, they were caught with their pants down. They were lying about this from the very beginning. And if they're lying about this, what else are they lying about? That's the bigger question Americans should be asking themselves, but they're not. They shouldn't be trusted. And again, I point to, again, the big social tech media companies. They want to combat fake news. Fight it right now. Prove them. Give us an example of the mainstream media actually getting a taste of their own medicine. This is why it's so important that Parler is coming back, because Twitter suppresses news. These big tech giants suppress news. I mean, Twitter literally shut down the Hunter Biden story.

And then they take down Parler with more fake news. So the big claim when Parler got taken down was basically that people were organizing on Parler for the Capitol riot. And that was a lie. So all of this information coming out is a lie. Yeah. I mean, we're being – I mean, the good example there was Facebook was far more of the center of that sort of organizing for January

6th. Something like if you actually look at the criminal indictments, like 80% of them mentioned organizing on Facebook. There was plans online to go after the Capitol. There's groups, there's individuals publicly talking about this and then the intelligence agencies, you know, oh, you know, we had no idea.

We had no clue. And then when it comes to the inauguration, huge, massive security theater, huge National Guard. Because now there is a legitimate threat. Look, look, you got to give them some credit. They may have dropped the ball this time. But, I mean, they've been particularly diligent in doing their jobs. Like when the noose was found at the NASCAR garage, they were there. They were on it.

Yes, absolutely. Well, how many were like over a dozen? A dozen FBI agents. So, you know, when we need the most, they're there. I mean, who really cared about Capitol? Right? I mean, you know, we didn't need them. Well, there's other reports that I'm seeing that Trump actually requested troops on that day and he was denied.

I still haven't been able to independently verify that. No, it's true. Okay. requested troops on that day and he was denied i still haven't been able to independently uh verify that's true okay yeah so mayor muriel bowser said she didn't want a massive police presence when they said they were going to bring in the national guard she said she didn't want them to be armed there there were other uh individuals in you know dc politics saying oh no you know and and it may be that's because of black lives matter and the optics around the police coming in you know going after the protesters. But they were guarding the White House, you know, pretty diligently. I mean, there was fences around the White House weeks before January 6th.

So, you know, something, of course, a lot of people are asking a lot of questions, especially with some of the people that are arrested that had ties to the FBI. Now, I don't want to get all conspiratorial because because, again, we have no actual proof or evidence of this. You have a lot of conjecture. You have a lot of people connecting the dots on certain issues. But I think it's fair to say that there definitely should be a lot more questions about this event. I think it's pretty demoralizing, man. I use the New York Times all the time, and I generally give them the benefit of the doubt that when they're reporting something, it's likely to be true. Not massively likely. I'm not saying 99%, but at least, come on, 51%? There's just like a banal awfulness for our institutions right now.

I mean, you know, Rent said something about the banality of evil. I wouldn't call them evil, but they're just awful. They're like not— The banality of awfulness. The banality of awfulness. They're just so bad at doing performing their basic function. You know, I mean, they've been

bad, though. I want to sit here and play this whole, like, Barry Weiss angle. You know, for those unfamiliar, she worked for the Times. She wrote this big letter when she left saying it's like wokeness and critical theory and intolerance taking over. But the reality is the New York Times has been awful for a long time. I mean, the Iraq War, you know, weapons of mass destruction.

It's gotten worse. I mean, I think the example would be like they broke the Hillary Clinton email story four years ago. Yeah, yeah. You know, they published the Snowden articles when they came out during the Obama administration. I think there's two dynamics. One is, you know, Trump made them all deranged and they became like partisan as opposed to like just liberal but trying to be objective. And then I think the second thing is you see all these woke scandals in The New York Times and, I mean, they're so consumed by these internal HR dramas that they've lost their ability to perform their function of being journalists. Well, now they're constantly writing about themselves.

Yeah. That's the crazy thing. There's like another article that came out right now about the New York Times. And I can't remember who, but one of these media reporters. Ben Smith. Ben Smith. Was it Ben? Who was like the New York Times has become like a reality show where they're just

writing articles about their own staff members now. But people are clicking it. That's why they're doing it. Well, I remember a few years ago hearing about their investigative unit just being totally gutted by new acquisitions to the company. And that makes absolutely sense because if you don't have the budget to investigate stories or look into stories or research stories, well, you just have to make them up just like they did in this instance. And I think it's very fair to say that this, I mean, you could say evil, you could say just total ignorance, you could just say total stupidity.

Whether it is or isn't, it's still absolutely wrong and bad. And it needs to be called out as much as it can. So people realize that the New York Times is not the newspaper of record. It's the newspaper of whatever special interest or bozo behind it. No, no, no. It's the lowest common denominator of subscribers. So they probably look at their subscriber base, people who are paying you know digitally and they're like which one's gonna you know attract more people or which one will be interesting to most of the

people who watch or you know who read our stuff and so you know i want to make sure that we don't become like the new york times we are at tim cast iron which is why we're very seriously looking into setting up a tv commercial for our pillow we We're going to we're going to make sure that we use our resources for important things like a burlap sack full of packing peanuts that we advertise on primetime cable, just as sort of like a culture jam, you know, or whatever. But I'm kidding. Actually, we are we are working towards hiring reporters. And the idea would be the New York Times is going backwards. That's the way I view it. They're supposed to be using, you know, all this all this stuff they

report on. The funding they get from subscribers should go towards journalism that people probably don't want to hear or might not care about. Instead, what they're doing is they're getting rid of the journalism that people probably don't care about but still needs to be reported and replacing it with internal drama and conflict what i want to do here is that we have like we're all sitting here complaining about the new york times we don't even do hardcore investigative journalism so it's like easy for us to criticize well we're going in the right direction in that from a commentary podcast show we're going to use funding towards actual journalism and that's kind of the idea. I think they're doing the opposite. But look, I'll give them some respect in that they do

journalism. Although I'm pretty concerned about whether I can trust it at this point. And I think, you know, what we want to do is particularly different. We'll have a brand that literally only does journalism. So we're like, we'll create a website dedicated specifically to just reporting stuff. And then we can keep the commentary off of that. Otherwise, I don't know, man. I think it's demoralizing. Yeah, it is. There is something.

It's just like you rely on there being some institutions that remain nonpartisan. I think it's part of a bigger theme. Think about like the ACLU, for example. Everybody was great with the ACLU when they were just always fight free speech cases. You knew that it didn't matter if it was some communist or some terrible white nationalist, whatever it was, if they were having their free speech rights violated, the ACLU would go in and defend them because they were like, the principle matters more. It's about the right. Now

they don't do that. Now they turn down far right clients because they're uncomfortable with it. Well, now they're talking about gender on Twitter. Right. And I mean, I remember I went to an ACLU event, you know, they're uncomfortable with it. Well, now they're talking about gender on Twitter. Right. And I mean, I remember I went to an ACLU event. They were celebrating their anniversary. They didn't even have a free speech. They didn't even talk about their free speech. They're just embarrassed by it now.

Well, they made a lot of money. They made a lot of money opposing Donald Trump. And this is why I've never been a big fan of most nonprofits because they're corporations. They care about their bottom line. They have customers. The customers, I'll tell you this. I think nonprofits are actually substantially more dangerous than for-profits in not every single one, obviously, but there are good for-profits that do the right thing that are maybe sustainable and try to avoid polluting.

And there are some good nonprofits that tend to be very small and they actually want to help people. But here's what I find with most nonprofits. They are still just corporations. The customer is an individual who wants their hopes and dreams fulfilled, or at least wants to feel like they're doing something. Nonprofits make money by convincing you that you don't have to do anything. You don't got to change your life. You don't have to recycle. You don't have to go and fight for the rights of free speech. Just give me 20 bucks and I'll do it for you. And they don't they don't but they want to make sure their customers think they're getting a product that's the crazy thing with a four with a poor profit like if we're selling pillows like we actually have one's a burlap sack full of packing peanuts i actually have to give

you a sack full of packing peanuts otherwise you're like yo where's my product not the non-profits not aclu and especially not the New York Times. This is the crazy thing about the news industry. If you call a plumber because your toilet breaks, right? Plumber comes in, fixes your toilet. You walk over, you flush it. It works. You say, okay, my toilet works. Here's your money. One day you call the plumber, your toilet doesn't work. He says, I fixed your toilet. Take my word for it. You flush it. Nothing happens. You say, bro, I'm not paying you. How do you know the New York Times or any other news organization is doing their job? How can you tell the article is exactly what you asked for in terms of a product,

legitimate information? You can't. You can't check it. I mean, you can only guess. And I mean, you can infer from the fact that when they actually report something that's in your area of expertise, it's wrong. Right, right, right. The Galman Amnesia effect. The Galman Amnesia effect. I mean, that keeps happening. that when they actually report something that's in your area of expertise, it's wrong. Right, right. The Galman Amnesia effect. The Galman Amnesia effect. I mean, that keeps happening. You just see them report something.

I remember doing this. I remember I went to – it was during the Flynn case. And I went to a hearing and, you know, watched how Judge Sullivan handled the defendants and, you know, came out of that hearing. And I was there. And then I watched all the news stations report it wrong. Like, it was just their – I mean, it was true insofar as they weren't making explicit factual errors, but their like entire description of it was super misleading. That's how it is.

During the last show we did, when we did Super Chat, someone asked us this question, like how do we trust what we read? And I went off on a tangent, but one of the things I said, if it's an anonymous source, there's a lot of reason to be skeptical. Another thing you really have to ask yourself when you're reading the news, whether it's even from independent or mainstream media, is who benefits? Who benefits from this information? And ask yourself with this New York Times story, it's a, you know, a lot of independent

critical thinkers use that term, Cubono, especially when going through our modern news lexicon. But with that New York Times story, Cubono, who benefits from that psychological, emotional damage that was kind of sent out there to the general public? Who benefits from the story being perpetrated that these ravaged savages beat someone over the head and bashed their head in until their skull exploded with a fire extinguisher. Well, it's who benefits off of that. It's a cabal. Yeah.

No, no, no, no, no. I don't know who the cabal is. But Time magazine said that there was a cabal, their words, not mine, of wealthy elites who were conspiring. Again, Time magazine said that, not me. To fortify the election. Well, to ensure the proper outcome. Of course.

Right. And so who benefits? Well, the people who are trying to impeach Donald Trump. I would normally just say the Democrats, but apparently Time Magazine says there's a cabal. So I guess it's canon now. You know, for a long time, people have referred to the cabal in a sort of conspiratorial way. And people have been like, oh, come on, there's no cabal. Well, Time Magazine, an official certified news guard source, you can put it in Wikipedia now, the cabal, and then put a little citation to the Time Magazine article.

It exists. I'm half kidding, by the way. But the bigger point is the next story we have is coming off of the impeachment from this weekend. The Democrats definitely benefited from fake news, but they also benefited from the fake news they created with the evidence that they doctored. So I don't know if you guys saw this, Will, Jordan, the tweets and the selective video. So I think everybody noticed the videos were off. They cut what Trump said. They added audio like after or in between. But more importantly, they actually showed a tweet that they totally just made. My favorite, my favorite, I don't know if it was a screw up or not, was when a woman tweeted, we're bringing the

Calvary. And then, was it Eric Swalwell said, she said she's bringing the Cavalry. Do you guys know what the Calvary is? It's like a religious thing. I don't know exactly. I could be wrong. So that is a reference to the hill that Jesus died on. It's a very strong religious

reference, and I completely understand what she's saying there. She's like trying to bring religion into it and make it be like a, almost like a crusade, which also I don't really like, but I kind of understand that better. It is an open air representation of the crucifixion of Jesus. And they did bring the cross and raised it on the Capitol. There you go. They were bringing the cavalry. And he said cavalry as if to imply they were going to be storming the gates on horseback.

They clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Well, there's more than that. There was a, I mean, they changed the date on a tweet, right? That might seem small, but that's... The year, right? Well, so, but that wasn't in the actual trial. That was in the New York Times. But this is where the media comes in to lie to everyone once again.

Check this story out from Business Insider. They say Trump lawyer accuses house managers of manipulating evidence by pointing to doctored tweets that weren't used in the impeachment trial. Did you hear that? Weren't used in the impeachment trial? Was it in the briefing? It was used in the impeachment trial.

What happened was Swalwell created, he recreated tweets. Why? Donald Trump's account has been banned. In his recreation, an image that was shown in the New York Times had the wrong date, January 3rd, 2020. When they presented that same doctored tweet, it was actually two tweets in one graphic image.

They corrected it to 2021. To say that they didn't use that simply because they altered it slightly to a certain degree is absolutely insane. Because what what Trump's lawyers were saying was they added the verification badge to make it seem like Trump was quoting a public figure, probably of some prominence, telling people to show up in D.C. and to bring the cavalry, which like the funny thing was when he was saying that the actual image said calvary like they didn't know what it was and i remember when this happened in the trial i saw an actual lefty journalist say cavalry or calvary does this guy not know the difference and this was like a lefty journalist he didn't that's that you know what man maybe the only reason this guy got in is because fong fong was propping him up. Fong Fong. He's still on the House Intelligence Committee for a reason. Intelligent.

I mean, go back 30 years, major, any politician during the Cold War gets caught like, oh, you slept with a Russian spy? That's it. Like, that's the end of your career. You are asked to resign by your party. Your own party, yeah. How can we not be demoralized when you have a guy who was aided in his campaign for office by a Chinese spy?

He was sleeping with her, right? Literally, yeah. He was sleeping with her? I believe so, yeah. Those are the allegations, but he won't answer specifically if he did or didn't. So some people are saying

guilt by association by not even responding. Well, I don't agree with that. Some people are saying that. But I'd like proof,. Well, I don't agree with that. Some people are saying that. But I'd like proof. But let's just we know he was associated and working with and she was helping his campaign. That's a fact. I wouldn't want to see the proof.

I mean, poor Fang Fang. Poor Fang Fang? Chinese spy? She had to, you know, be with Mr. Swalwell. That's a good point. There was a Babylon Bee article. He's the guy who farted on TV, remember? Yes.

An election. I mean, the man also parroted a lot of the communist Chinese government talking points throughout his career. Fang Fang was very instrumental in raising a lot of funds for his election. And the Babylon Bee article said something like, Chinese spy sent to internment camp because she was forced to sleep with Eric Swalwell, chose internment camp specifically to avoid sleeping with Eric Swalwell. Again, satirical article. But again, major story. Should have been covered more.

There should be more attention to this. There should have been at least more hearings about what actually was released, especially with him being on the Intelligence Committee hearings. Like, what information does China have from Eric? Here's the point I wanted to make. Here's a guy who definitely needs to be investigated because of his association with a Chinese spy, and he's leading impeachment, presenting doctored evidence. And look, there's almost no point in having the argument over the veracity or the severity

of the doctored evidence. You know that the left goes, oh, it was just a verification badge. It's meaningless. And I'm like, I literally don't care. They created that image. Try that in a federal court. Yeah, they'll throw you out. They'll be like what do you how dare you manufacture sanction you and you will face

discipline at the bar right if you doctor any sort of evidence in any way yeah it's not just doctored he manufactured the image it was edited together and they and and the argument is but it's because trump's account was deleted it doesn't matter you can go into the archives and the argument is it's because Trump's account was deleted. It doesn't matter. You can go into the archives and the woman's tweets still exist. Instead, he just manipulated an image. That to me is mind-blowing. It shows you that this was a completely unserious trial.

And then, he just we all knew it was going to happen. Trump is acquitted. So I'm sorry, man. It is entirely demoralizing. What do we do? You know, I've talked about culture. Winning the culture war, I understand. Making movies, you know, Ben Shapiro is doing movies.

We have now Gina Carano is going to be doing some with the Daily Wire. How do we deal with this? I mean, you know, I've been thinking about this myself because, you know, I've been mostly over the last couple of years I've been doing like opinion and commentary. And it's been, you know, it was aimed kind of towards influencing Republicans. Right. Like not only, I mean, you know, defending Trump from various things that I think administration with its conjoined banally awful institutions like the New York Times. Like we need to report on them. There needs to be like really good – I mean I think you start with media because culture is – politics is downstream of culture.

But we also just need really good reporting on them. We need real journalism and real fearless journalism that's willing to challenge these major institutions. And it seems like off the top of my head, there's only one name I can think of, and it's Veritas. They just got banned from Twitter. I know. Right. So they throw every smear in the book at James O'Keefe. And to me, it's crazy.

I certainly think James has a point of view. I certainly think he's right-leaning or conservative. I mean, he speaks at like CPAC and stuff like that, right? But it doesn't matter to me. I don't care what your politics are, is what you're telling me true and important. And whenever I look at, say, you know, Veritas' reporting, I take into consideration all framing. And the issue is, James doesn't make opinion commentary like the New York Times does. He just publishes a video and says, here's what they said. Now, maybe you can accuse them of taking things out of context, but why should that faze me when they do it all day, every day? At the very least,

their argument is James is as bad as they are or the same as they are. There's good reporting from the Times, and I try my best to find it, and sometimes they do things like this. They do it all too often. So what? Well, you can't trust a news outlet that's that afraid of their readers. I mean, the New York Times is terrified of their subscribers. So like, why are we trusting anything that they're saying? You know, like you're just telling these people what they want to hear because you're so afraid. And then this goes back to the culture war, too.

Like, why are we losing the culture war? We're terrified of pissing people off like we just need to stop being afraid of pissing everybody off that's the craziest thing to me like since when are conservatives worried about offending hollywood like you're never gonna be in those movies dude they hate your guts they hate you they're gonna hate you no matter what you say yeah it's just ridiculous that's a really good point there was something i saw for uh about fox news where i think it was was it lachlan Murdoch? Is that his name? Yeah.

Is that something like we're going to be a center-right organization because the right way a news organization serves its audience is to like present them information that they want to hear or whatever or they agree with, something like that? I don't know exactly what he said, but that's exactly it. We've gone from news organizations say things I don't like, but that's the news. It used to be that people trusted the news outlet, and if they heard news they didn't like, they didn't blame the news outlet for saying it. Now they do. I don't think all hope is lost.

I think there's a reason a lot of these media companies had to turn off their comments. I think there's a reason why, you know, apps like Telegram and Signal are doing as well as they are. And just even just looking at the latest comments from the 60 minutes bill gates interview there's a lot of interesting comments to say the least and i just looked up eric swalwell on twitter and one of the first thing that comes up is a happy valentine's day card with him and fang fang on it so the the culture there the the the resistance the people informing themselves and understanding

what's going on i i i think that there's more of that than we realize on the perception of people being dumb and angry and stupid is something that is programmed in the algorithm to make us believe that's true but i believe it's more rare than it is visible on social media no i mean you know i would like to push back slightly, I guess. I think about, I was the person who said Trump was not going to win back in the end of November

and got the tweet that was ratioed into oblivion. 20,000. 20,000 replies. All the Trump supporters being like, you've turned coat. And I was right. And I mean,

they were all wrong. Rub it in, Will. Yeah, well, I mean, if I can't brag here, I don't know. It here it's like that name you're like why are you booing i'm right yeah exactly like but there's but the point being that there was this whole there was a very very strange political and like dynamic among people if you were any involved in conservative politics at all where you were you were walking on a tightrope in the period after the election, pre-inauguration, where if you even tried to do objective analysis that was even somewhat pessimistic, you were getting hammered for it.

I get it. A lot of these people who are supporting Trump were desperate and holding on by threads. And so they needed all the morale they could get. And if a realist steps in and says, guys, guys, it's threads, man. They're like, no, you know, they can't let go. Yeah, but it wasn't. I kept saying this. It wasn't just Trump trying to win by the numbers.

It was Trump versus the machine. Yeah, it was an issue of can Trump win? The votes is one thing. Can Trump beat the machine to the legal process with lawyers, with public opinion, with the entire establishment against them. That was a bigger question. Yeah. And in the end, the answer was no.

However, I do think it's hilarious that even after they, they beat him in the election, they had to give themselves one final L. Like they couldn't just walk away. They were like, let's try an impeachment. We know won't work.

Just to be losers on the way out. Give Trump the final word. They could have let it go. They really didn't have to. out. Give Trump the final word. They could have let it go. They really didn't have to do it. Well, they're not. They're not going to let it go. Eric Swallow is calling for more investigations and more hearings. He was just talking about how God is a woman during, yes, during, you know, some of his

testimony that he was on right now. And now Nancy Pelosi is calling for a 9-11 style commission into the January 6th insurgency. So they're not going to stop talking about this at all because this is the only card that they have. A lot of Americans are asking them like, hey, you promised us a lot of stuff. Show us what you got.

You're in power. You have the House. You have the Senate. You have the presidency. What can you do for the American people? And they're like, 9-11 commission on donald trump do you want that and people are like uh no i don't want that that doesn't interest me what can you do for me this is american people are asking that and it's going to become more tumultuous as we move forward this is what i love about what the democrats are doing right now there's a lot of pundits on the left that

they love projecting what's going on with Democrats onto Republicans. And it's funny because the Republicans don't do anything. You know what I mean? Like Mitch McConnell is he, what does he vote? Not guilty, but then complains Trump was guilty. It's like, clearly the dude's not doing anything. Republican leadership at this point is an oxymoron, but the Democrats like to claim that Republicans don't have any real policies. That's why they're not doing anything. The't have any real policies. That's why they're not doing anything. The Democrats have no real policies. That's why all they keep doing is saying orange man bad well after the orange man's gone.

It's been a month. Seriously. And now they want to do a new commission. 9-11 style commission to investigate the Capitol breach is the next step. Oh, is it? But why? Impeachment's over. What's the point?

Yeah, the national guard's still in dc right i mean i was i would left i was there briefly and i still saw they had all the fences and the barbed wire it was a day of freezing rain it looked absolutely miserable um i think that was the day that the verdict was announced they're still there they've still militarized the capital they're gonna be there until march yeah like for what i heard they're gonna be there until March. Yeah. Like for what? I heard they're gonna be there longer actually. So I can't remember who exactly tweeted this joke but they said

something about the National Guard is it's they're now saying the National Guard will remain in D.C. until the fall. The fall of what?

I'd be so pissed if I was in the National Guard and they're like you just need to stand out here by this barbed wire fence and sleep in the parking garage on the street. Yeah I'm not a parking garage and share a bathroom one bathroom with 5 000 other individuals you know they're still doing it well so i don't i don't know if exactly right now but i remember after the big controversy was they're making like 5 000 guardsmen take breaks or like sleep in a parking garage with one power

outlet and two toilets and then there was a big uproar oh how dare they and then like a week ago they were like yeah they're still there like they never got them out the news cycle just walked away and everyone forgot about these people but i've heard from people who's who's you know who uh friends of friends of people in the guard who say that they're they're extremely demoralized it's like but but i mean i mean think about that demoralization has to be sweeping across this country, just across the board. And the issue with that is, I'm sure everyone's familiar with Yuri Bezmenov. He talked about, you know, that sort of, yeah, I feel like I've seen that clip on YouTube. It's just, it's sent 50 billion times to us all day, every day.

But he talks about demoralization and what happens when people are completely demoralized and they feel like the system doesn't work anymore. There's no justice. Nancy Pelosi doing this commission is probably the stupidest and most deranged thing I've ever heard. To tell the American people at a time when the news report, I think it was Reuters, $1,400 checks will hold you over until July. Like, in what world will that be enough for anybody? But don't worry. Don't worry. I know you're all stressed. You can't pay your rent. The moratorium on evictions is going to be ending soon. We're going to see millions of evictions, but it's OK. Nancy Pelosi

has promised a 9-11 style commission on several the several hundred people who walked, who stormed their way into the Capitol building. And while you're sleeping outside, you can rest easy knowing the full details of what happened on January 6th. It won't change anything in your life. It won't change who the president is. It won't give you any food, but it's the right ideology.

Hey there, hey, hey, don't be all negative. At least the pharma industrial complex is going to have more profits with their insulin. You know, it's not all bad. So why would they have more profits from their insulin? You know, it's not all bad. So why would they have more profits from their insulin? Because of the rule that Biden overturned. You know what? That actually makes sense

because I was going to say they were going to have less profits because once they evict the people who are diabetic and they can't have a refrigerator because they'll be living outside for their insulin, they'll die. So then how do they make up that loss of profits from the dead people?

Jack the price back up. Yeah. Yeah, Cuomo style. It's not all bad. The military industrial complex is also going to be happy as NATO just announced that they're not going to be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon today. Thank the Lord. I was really worried. You know, I've long said when people I see all these activists complaining with the military industrial complex and American empire.

And I'm like, who's going to bomb the kids if we don't do it? And then when Trump, the Abraham Accords bringing peace to the Middle East, thank our lucky stars. How gauche of him. I know, right? Praise be to Biden

bringing in those drones and keeping us in Afghanistan. For what reason? I'm not entirely sure, but apparently they told us it needs to be done. Most of my life, we've been in Afghanistan.

More than half of my life. All my life yeah yeah there's fathers and sons fighting alongside each other in afghanistan it's the longest war in american history and where does the money go where does the money go where does all the opium come from the 90 of the world's opium where does it come from it's a money toilet yeah and the stories that've heard, because I've heard from a lot of soldiers that were over there, especially when it comes to, you know, we can't even talk about some of the stuff here that the soldiers caught. And soldiers were punished in the United States for exposing the abuse of children in Afghanistan and trying to stop it in Afghanistan. So it's just an absolutely horrible thing to be in there. I understand you're hurting, and this kind of stuff stresses you out, makes you angry. But did you know that Nancy Pelosi is putting together

a 9-11-style commission on the people who stormed the Capitol? Feels good, man. See, he's laughing. It's the same type of... We were just talking about the New York Times and their own navel-gazing being constantly consumed by their own internal HR drama, right?

Okay. Congress is now constantly internally consumed by its own. Think about like they spent their time trying to expel Marjorie Taylor green, impeaching the president, nine 11 commissions. Like it's all so drama. It's all reality TV.

It's just all internal HR matters basically within the government as opposed to doing things. They've stopped being able to perform their function. I almost want to run for office. And when people are like, what do you stand for? I just be like, I'm going to just build a shed for this one guy. That's it. I'm going to

use all of my time to go to local people's houses and help them with their chores. If you elect me, I will help you with your chores. Because at least then your taxpayer dollars goes towards something productive. Because I can't tell you what these people are doing. I might not be there to vote on whatever stupid garbage bill they're proposing,

but I assure you this, if I ever did run, I'd literally just weed your garden, put up some fences for you, walk your dog, because then you know your tax dollars are at least getting you some public service, right? I mean, how hard is it?

This is the easiest government program ever. Just give people money. They did it already. They know how to do it. Like, this is the easiest government program ever. Like, just give people money. Like, they did it already. They know how to do it. They just write a check. They use whatever technology they did to put the money in your bank account. Well, they even fumbled that, especially with even the first check. There was multiple trials.

There was different layers. There was different time periods when people got their checks. So the government can't even send you a check correctly. What makes you think they should run your medical health care? What makes you think that they should be in charge of anything in your life? They were giving dead people money, and they were giving money to non-citizens overseas. Like, how does it happen that some dude in a different country wakes up like,

the American government gave me money for some reason. We have a social security number, all of us. It's so easy. They have the data. All they have to do is literally be like, okay, yeah, send them a check. Oh, live, dead, check. That's it. They can't even do it.

They can't run the DMV. They can't run the post office. And guess what? All of government runs that way. Preach. Spend a few days. Spend a few hours even at your local DMV and imagine these central controllers wanting to control every aspect of

your life. It would scare the bejesus out of you. That's the one thing I don't get. Like the people who advocate for universal health care like Bernie Sanders does, do they not remember going to the DMV once? Yeah. I mean, you know, there's all sorts of problems that lead to government incompetence. And it gets back to the point I was making earlier. There's not a good way to punish them for lying. I think perhaps there's two big disciplines on our public companies that, and our regulatory system kind of works for this, right?

The first discipline is they have to make money. And the second is they have to tell the truth every three quarters or they risk, I mean, they don't always do it, but they're like under a legal obligation to, and they have to file a report that's examined by stock market investors. I want public lashings. You're a politician, you lie, you have to file a report that's examined by, you know, stock market investors. I want public lashings.

You're a politician. You lie. You have to go to the center of the city and you get lashed by a random citizen who wins the lottery. A constituent.

Yeah. He's given the cat a nine tails. Yes. And then you get to whoop the politicians in the buttocks for lying. I'll clarify though

because I said They do that in Somalia, by the way. I said the people like Bernie Sanders because I actually would like like I personally would like some kind of universal basic health care. But Bernie Sanders wants to abolish private health care. I think so long as you have that competition and you have that choice, I think we'll be OK. But I also think before you can advocate for any before you can implement any kind of major social reform, you've got to weed out the corruption. And I think that's the biggest wall blocking legitimate social programs and social reform. I mean, if you can't even give people $2,000 checks, how on earth are you going to do brain surgery on them? Like, yeah, not – government's not competent enough to do this. You know what the problem is?

Like when the programs first start, when the government first comes in, there's somebody with a decent idea that makes sense to a lot of people. But businesses have to fight to survive. They have to make sense. A business has to be able to generate revenue and profit to hire more people and grow. And if they can't, they collapse. Government, when they just can't do it,

they just send more people with guns to collect more taxes and then pump more money into something that's not working. So that's always been my thing. I like the idea of social programs. The problem is, well, the first question is, can they ever be implemented properly? Or is the issue, there needs to be an expiration date on all of them, period.

I mean, you have to think about how you use government and trying to keep whatever it's doing within its core competency. When I think about, for example, what should big tech law look like? You know what I mean? I'm advocating a bigger governmental role in regulating Twitter and Facebook, et cetera. Well, I'm like, okay, so we want, we want civil rights style litigation that allows people to go to court and pursue their rights, like essentially sue the companies because we have courts, they work, they, they, they know how to issue orders and get people to comply with them. That's a core competency of government.

When you're saying, oh, government should literally run the health care system, you're way outside the government's core competency. Well, we talked a bit about giving out checks to people, the government's inability to do things. Well, we got another big story that I think plays into the government's ability to do things. And actually, what you guys are saying makes me a little bit more confident because we have the story. CBS News reports Biden calls on Congress to ban assault weapons and institute other gun restrictions. I suppose the good news there is that, as we just mentioned, they can't get giving up money, right? They can't even give people money.

Are they going to be able to actually implement that? Yeah. How are they going to actually be able to take anybody's guns away or do anything like that they seem to have no idea what they're doing the thing is they won't and it will create more conflict and it will create more fights and it will create a really nasty situation inside of the united states and it seems like some people within our government are hell-bent at fighting each other and i think this is exactly what this particular bigger grab of authority away from the people is. You're pretty much saying that, you're not saying that guns are bad. You're just saying that only the special privileged people should have guns. The politicians should have guns.

And I don't know why we're not making this more of a talking point, but gun control, specifically in the the united states is based off institutional racism and white supremacy there's a long history of that but hold on and you would think that's that's that's not even like some haha got you talking oh no this is actually something the left does say all the time because people need to understand leftists and liberals are not the same thing it's the liberal corporate democrat types establishment types that are like ban all the guns. Leftists like Antifa, they're like, nah, we like our guns. They're pro to a their tools of the revolution. They love that stuff. Yeah. I mean, I'm a little I guess I'm a little more optimistic

on the front of what's going to happen because I think the courts are going to shut that down. I mean, much of the early assault weapons ban stuff, that predates D.C. versus Heller and the big cases that the Supreme Court ruled on, which basically protects the individual right to guns that are in common use. And I think there might be no more gun that's more in common use than the AR-15. It's the most commonly purchased platform. First, let me just say, the gist of the story is Biden put out this campaign statement saying we need to ban assault weapons, universal background checks. What you need to understand about assault weapons is there have been there's no definition. Yeah. Assault weapon is meaningless.

Assault rifle typically refers to select fire, selective fire rifle. So they can do single burst and full auto. Those have been illegal even before they were invented because of, I guess, like, was it NFA? Was that it? I'm not the smart, like the most gun person ever. I can already see all the chat lighting up with people saying, I have no idea what he's talking about.

I can correct you. The point is, assault rifles are not legal. They can do full auto. Assault weapon has no unifying definition, and it makes literally no sense. In some states, like there's like a standard there's like uh uh in some states for instance the m1 is illegal and like for what reason is that illegal and then your standard like uh scar or whatever is legal so cosmetic differences but i mean something on a soul weapon versus not totally not related to function it's it's it's no it's like well that weapon was

once used in war so it's illegal but the other one that's more modern more powerful and more efficient is totally fine it's meaningless so i i suppose the the bigger picture is whether or not the government will be able to do it and you mentioned you're a bit more optimistic on the court shutting this down but my my question is it's a second amendment what is it what do you know the text of the Second Amendment, Will? You know, the rights of it. I'm not off the top of my head. You don't need to give it verbatim. But yeah, like something, because like a well-armed or well-regulated militia being necessary

to the health of a free society, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What's that last part? It shall not be infringed. Before that? The right to keep and bear arms. Those two words, what were they? Keep and bear. Bear. And that's part of the heller decision right like the ability to so i think a later one so why is it that in dc for instance i can't legally bear arms

um because courts i mean the way these amendments are interpreted they're you know judicial interpretation judicial gloss changes things i mean mean, so... Manipulation and power. The politicians in D.C. are like, I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone challenge me. Pre-Heller, I mean, before Heller was ruled, the Ninth Circuit had already decided that the ability

to keep a handgun in your home was not part of the Second Amendment. Yeah. Right? It took Heller to reverse that and be like, no, there's an individual right to bear arms in your home. And that's and you know, that's absolutely insane. Yeah. The initial language of the Second Amendment before it was called the Second Amendment,

it was called like Article 5 or something. I can't remember which article it was. There were 17 articles proposed for the Constitution, and the first two had to do with like Congress and apportionment or something like that. But the original text literally said, basically, even if somebody doesn't want to be in a militia, they're allowed to have a gun. And they took that out. I guess I was reading they were worried it would outlaw conscription. And considering it was, you know, the birth of a new nation, they're like, we need to be able to force people to fight wars for us.

You know, and look, I'm not trying to be a dick. Like back then we had the War of 1812. You know, we had the British kidnapping people. We were weak. Right. People forget how weak we were. Like Britain won the War of 1812 and then made a nice peace with us because they were more worried about Napoleon. But you know, I was reading about it how it's one of the few wars where everyone declared victory.

And the only loser was the Native Americans who were caught in the crossfire. I mean, you know, Madison sent our troops up into like Canada, and then Britain showed up. Oh, look, you left your capital unoccupied. I guess we'll burn it to the ground. Like, and I mean, we were we were losing badly, because they were a massive naval power. We were very, very weak. And again, again, the only reason they just they just got annoyed by it. They're like, okay, Napoleon's conquering all of Europe right now. That's a little more important than what those colonies are doing. Yeah, we almost we almost took Montreal. The U.S. tried to take Montreal, you know, and so it's entirely possible that would have been in America.

But so the initial proposal for the Second Amendment actually was longer. And it basically said, in the event even somebody does not want to join a militia, they can still have that weapon. They took it out. And then that leaves us today where you have these people who are arguing like it says a well-regulated militia. First of all, which definition of regulated are they saying? Regulated in the sense of armed and efficient, like well-regulated in the sense that everyone's got a weapon, or regulated in the sense that the government controls what they do. It's a modern interpretation off of what they may have actually meant. It's also just bad grammar, right? People should know how to read an English sentence. The first phrase, a prefatory phrase, is like, here is one reason why we're going to enact this

rule, right? A well-regulated militia being necessary to the health of a free state. It's like that's one reason or the reason that we're going to do this. And then we say the rule, right? A well-regulated militia being necessary to the health of a free state. It's like that's one reason or the reason that we're going to do this. And then we say the rule, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So that's the big issue. Joe Biden says he wants to do this. We've got the story from Michigan Live how riots, politics, and a pandemic drove record gun sales in Michigan from February 13th. But this is just one story I just pulled up. I mean, we've had record sales, record background checks for the past year because of the riots, the pandemic and politics. So now now we're hearing from Joe Biden. He wants to start banning assault weapons. But by their definition, that's like in some it is the craziest thing. You somewhat one weapon you

can buy in, say, you know, New York. You can't even bring to New Jersey. You could live in Philadelphia, literally on the water. You cross over the other side with a totally legal weapon, that's an assault weapon. Definition changes outright. So the first thing I have to, I suppose they'd have to do is define what an assault weapon was. And I'll tell you the scary thing is there was an attempt several years ago to define any semi-automatic weapon as an assault weapon, which meant literally the handgun a cop uses. So I went down to March for Our Lives, this big, the big protest, this is I think in 2017 or 18. And I was asking people, and I wasn't trying to do this gotcha stuff that you'll often see on YouTube where they're like, you're so dumb, explain it, you know, like Jimmy Kimmel does

it or whatever. I saw people holding signs saying ban assault rifles. And so I would ask them like, are you aware that they're already banned? And then they would go, oh, and they would like pull their sign down and fold it up and then hide it. Like, I guess you didn't realize I wasn't trying to get you. And then I would ask some people, very simply, I had the bill pulled up that was proposed, that would make like your Glock 17 illegal as an assault weapon. It would literally define the handgun as an assault weapon, one of the most common weapons in the country. And so I would ask people, do you think assault weapons should be banned? Yes. Do you think that includes, say, semi-automatic handguns? And they'll go, no, of course not. What about like, you know, a Glock 17 or something like a cop would use or a Glock 19?

And they would be like, no, no, no, no, no. We just mean high powered rifles where you can get off like 30 rounds in a few minutes. And then I would show them the bill, you know, from like GovTrack. And I'd be like, here's the current bill. Do you agree with what the Democrats are proposing? And they'll go, oh, no, no, I absolutely do not agree with that. And I'll be like, I mean, maybe it's important that, you know, all these millions of people coming out here know that. I mean, you'd come out here and a lot of people were shocked. They didn't realize just how serious it was that there have been proposals even to get

rid of semi-automatic. You see, I don't know if you guys remember that, what was it, CNN or whatever, where they said fully semi-automatic. You see, I don't know if you guys remember that, what was it, CNN or whatever, where they said fully semi-automatic. What? Right. Yeah, like they don't even know what they're talking about. And so there's a lot of people who think semi-automatic means you hold the trigger down and, you know, full auto. It's not.

It's remarkable how, so I recently, I guess you're not supposed to say what kind of weapons you have. But look, it's probably fine if I mention this one I just got, right? I don't know. What? The big one? No, no, no. The one that goes go pew? Well, no, the hunting one.

Okay. I'll just say, so I got a bolt action 450 Bushmaster Ruger, and when I was buying it, they were just basically saying to me, like, you should have no problems with this bolt action. It's great. It's excellent for hunting. You know, it was designed for, you know, for deer and stuff like that. And I was like, oh, that's perfect. In the event, we do want to go hunting or something like that. We want to go out with somebody. And then I asked them, I was like, why is it that they regulate the, you know, the AR-15s, but this thing is like just not even on the books. And they were, you know, well, because they don't do what they're talking about. And I had several people tell me that less moving parts on the bolt action, the bolt action 450. These are these are, you know, decently large rounds. They're more accurate at longer distances. They're potentially more dangerous from somebody who wants to cause harm. But because these politicians have no idea what they're talking about, they think the scary black looking rifle is a military weapon. It's got to be banned. Meanwhile, this hunting rifle, which is actually more deadly and more accurate they're like oh that's fine that's that's what well you

know what i think the better way to put it is i can talk all about this stuff as i'm discovering it and exploring it as i go to the gun shop and i'm buying these things and a lot of the people who own guns are sitting there laughing banging like ah he's they're laughing like ah young tim finally learning what it's like but here here's the funny thing about it. It's also a wake-up call to, it's kind of like the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. For those that aren't familiar, the idea of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is when you read a news article about something you're familiar with. So let's say you're a gun owner. And you read a story saying assault weapons will be banned.

And then they make reference to things that don't exist. And they get assault weapon wrong. And they define words. You laugh like these journalists have no idea. They say fully semi-automatic. They're so dumb. You turn the page and then it's like conflict in Syria, 50 dead. And you go, wow, I didn't know that. The idea is you all of a sudden forgot how incompetent these journalists were. I suppose there's another effect I would like in this too is people believe in government until they realize there's an area of government they're familiar with and how awful it's being controlled and regulated. So as soon as you start getting into like buying guns and going to class, which a lot of people are doing, all of a sudden you go, if they're doing this really bad, what other regulations do we have that are just as bad? If they don't know what an assault weapon is and can't define it, how are they handling

medicine? So this is super funny to me because the lady who sold me my personal weapon of choice in a different state was like, well, the state that you live in does not like this gun because it looks scary. And that kind of struck me as strange because I was like, the people who are actually regulating the things that we can and can't buy, this literal right that we have that's in the Constitution, they have no idea what they're talking about. They know nothing about what they're saying. And they think that they have a right to tell us what we can and can't do.

It's in the Constitution. I'm sorry. You may not like it. Well, another thing to really consider here is this. This is a very unpopular move by Biden. People have been buying guns in record numbers, even in big cities, even a lot of people on the left. A lot of people on the left have been buying firearms. And I truly believe this is done in an effort to push for more chaos. Order out of chaos is usually the big kind of

agenda that you see from a lot of these politicians that try to stir up a whole bunch of problems and then come in with the larger solution. At all costs, we need to prevent violence from happening. And the people in Brazil are having the opposite problem. As I'm learning right now, I'm reading an article that's talking about how Bolsonaro in Brazil is trying to make it easier for citizens to get guns more easily. The fascist. The Guardian has a propaganda article about this, and it's titled,

Anger as Bolsonaro Moves to Make Guns Easier to Access a Threat to Democracy. Terrifying. People need to understand, when you're armed with a firearm, this is what politicians are protected by. So if the politicians could have protections, why can't the average citizen be able to protect themselves and their properties? So when it comes to criminals, like in Mexico or let's say Chicago, places where guns are illegal, criminals still magically get guns and firearms. We got to talk about this story.

All right. We got the story from Reason. This gun shop says it won't do business with Biden voters. Yeah, in Missouri? No, in Michigan. Oh. Tech companies should have the same freedom to choose their customers. So this is a Michigan-based ammunition shop is refusing to sell to any customer who voted for President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

Quote, we've had a few potential customers call this morning to ask why they have to check a box stating they did not vote for Joe Biden in order to purchase our ammunition. Phoenix Ammunition tweeted yesterday morning. The answer? Joe Biden ran on a campaign built on the most radical gun control platform a major party candidate has ever had, including banning the online sale of ammunition. This, says Phoenix, is essentially a plan to bankrupt our company. That's true. I couldn't believe it when I read that. Joe Biden said, we will ban the online sale of ammo. Why?

What's seriously the problem there? That's crazy. Their whole plan is like, we're going to throw as much sand in the gears of gun ownership as we can. For what reason? But also,

you have to look at strategically here, this is against the best interest of the United States National Security. One of the things that makes America strong is its armed citizenry. When you take away the arms, geopolitically, we become weaker on the world stage.

Well, I mean, since when has what's good for the American people stopped Democrat ideology? I would say political ideology. And I want to be fair, too. Republican gets excluded from that because Republicans mostly do nothing. What did Trump do for the Second Amendment? I mean, nothing.

Well, no, he did worse. He did bad for it. Banning bump stocks. I mean, really, the big proposition, you know, the value proposition of Republican governance is that they won't do more bad things. Not that they'll do good things to improve your life. They'll just avoid doing the bad things. But when it comes to Trump and the bump stock ban he went further than democrats

would have even wished democrats usually uh grandfather in people and their firearms and their accessories donald trump made americans felons overnight with the signing of a pen something that of course democrats weren't able to do trump did i want to read more of this so uh there's another quote they say uh in a series of follow up tweets, the company stressed that it was perfectly willing to give up potential sales to people who voted for Biden. We're dead serious. Phoenix Ammunition tweeted. We don't want your money and you shouldn't want us to have it because we're going to use it to make more ammo, sell it to the citizenry and do everything in our power to prevent Joe Biden's administration from usurping

the rights of Americans. We have no problem talking to Biden voters and educating them on what they did, but they have to be willing to acknowledge their ignorance at the very least. We are not going to sit here and debate with you. We are a 2A company, and these are our first principles. Phoenix Ammunition's announcement has provoked a wave of positive attention from the right. Many are applauding the company for sticking up for its beliefs and declining to do business with people it sees as a threat to its business model. I love this.

Quote, private company tweeted perennial MAGA gadfly Jack Posobiec. The implication being that because Phoenix is private, it can do it at once. He's right, of course. Phoenix is perfectly within its rights to reject customers who voted for Biden or for any other reason related to a person's politics. Not in D.C., by the way. In D.C., politics, political ideology is a human right. And then they go on to say, I love this. And so is Twitter and YouTube and Facebook and Reddit and so on.

Yet when it comes to these private companies rejecting customers based on their ideological beliefs and political statements, Posobiec and many, many others on the right have been whining and objecting nonstop. They insist it violates their rights somehow. They champion proposals to force these private actors to carry speech they disagree with and cater to customer bases they find objectionable. They support federal action to punish private businesses for not being politically neutral. So which is it? Who wrote this and why are they simping?

Is it Robbie? No, it's Elizabeth Nolan Brown. It's Reason. Come on. It's Reason. Libertarians. They don't Nolan Brown. It's reason. Come on. It's reason. Yeah. Libertarians. They don't get that.

It's like Jack's joking, right? Right, right. If you actually go to Jack and you say, here's the deal. We can regulate private companies and prevent them from discriminating against you politically on Facebook and Twitter. But here's what you have to give up. The random gun shop in Michigan also has to serve Biden voters. He'd be like, yeah, I'll take the regulation.

Right, right, right. Thank you. You know, he's clearly joking, saying private company is poking fun at all of the people. This is really funny where libertarians break from a lot of conservatives and, you know, one of these issues, and they're more aligned with liberals on this one that. So actually, let me just say somehow that happened. When did when did pro corporate libertarians, you know, I should say pro corporate, but pro private right for companies break from conservatives on the issue and join the liberals?

Well, it's more like – The liberals were always for the regulations. The liberals realized – both the liberals and conservatives actually hold political power at times. The libertarians don't. So that's kind of where you start. And so liberals realized that it assisted them in their attempts to hold and wield political power if they were going to indulge the right of corporations to censor their ideological adversaries. And so liberals who under in any other context would never talk about how private companies can do whatever they want are suddenly saying, oh, actually, Facebook and Twitter are uniquely in the position where they should be given full autonomy, whereas conservatives are – like me – are also generally being like, no, generally the free market is a good idea, but I'm sorry, I don't like being discriminated against. Right. That's the difference between absolute like bottom-of-the-spectrum libertarianism

of free-for-all essentially and, well, we need some government, we need some regulations. Well, I'd love to hear a libertarian explain why, given this position that they have of like, oh, you should never interfere with a private company's right to do what they want, whether or not they could oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act and support the repeal of that law. They do support the repeal of it. Some do, but many don't. And many certainly aren't willing to talk about it. I mean, I actually did a debate. Like Joe Jorgensen. Yeah.

I did a debate with Robbie Suave on this, and he just dissembled horribly on it. I love Robbie, but he had a rough time when he was talking about the right of Facebook and Twitter to censor people. I'm like, okay, do you oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act? He's like, well, yeah, I do. I'm like, okay, so you're for hotels and restaurants discriminating, being able to discriminate against black people. He's like, well, you know, it's just. This is the craziest thing to me because I've never moved on this position. Like I've always been in this like this. This was the center left pro-regulation when corporations were interfering with the rights

of individuals becoming too powerful. That's when the people band together and say, you have too much power and it's causing us harm. So, you know, interestingly, like this is where, you know, the libertarians were educated. Like I feel like I was educated in this way that was saying like actually, you know, you know, really the problem was government and, you know, all those civil rights. They would have been protected and the issue was government intervention and Goldwater was right. The Civil Rights Act went too far. And then, you know, I look back at that, you know, 10 or 12 years ago, well, I'm like, that was dumb. Why did I believe that? That was clearly like historically wrong and just

very, very ideological. Well, do you know the story behind how like I this is one of the stories of how we saw the end of segregation was I think it was Lyndon Johnson. He had some black men who worked for him and he asked them. I told you the story. You told me the go oh wait what did you write this up for human events yeah i wrote this up tell the story man because we were it's a brilliant story so i mean this is in uh robert carrow's biography right but so lyndon johnson had these uh you know had black employees and a couple of them he had drive his car all the way back to texas from dc every year and um there usually wasn't a big deal but one year he wanted them to take his their his dog back with him and they were like please don't make us do that and when it's like

why like what's the big deal you have a dog in the car who cares and he's like do you understand what it's like to drive through the jim crow south with a car like we have to drive you know 40 miles off the main drag just to find a place a hotel or a Like, and then in many times we just have to sleep in the car. Uh, and we have to do that now with a dog too. Are you kidding? And it was sort of that moment that was just crystallized. Like, wait, we don't have to let that happen. Like we can, you know, whatever's going on in the South, we don't have to tolerate people

not being able to go to a motel or a restaurant on the road and having to go. We just don't have to tolerate that. We can say that that's illegal now. And to me, that's just really powerful of, you know, you can come up with all these, you know, rationalizations and hypotheticals about what would have happened in the absence of some early horrible government intervention. And every bad thing is the fruit of that early government intervention, like libertarians try to argue. You know, I hear a lot from libertarians that, oh, eventually these businesses would have failed and their competition would have succeeded.

I think the key word is eventually. Like, how long would that take? Maybe. And I think maybe is the right word. But here's another point. Put yourself in the position of a restaurateur or a motel owner in the Jim Crow South, just on some random stretch of highway. Are you making money hand over fist in the 1960s? No, you're not right. You're a restaurateur in the Jim Crow South in

the 1960s. So in, you know, in the abstract, like if some black person came in, even, even if you had like, maybe we're someone inclined to racism, you might say like, well, we need the money. So we're perfectly happy to serve you. But the problem was there was this private – the problem was this widespread racist disgust among the customer base. And so if there were so many white customers who were racist and would not stay in a motel, that was integrated. And so that private consumer demand for discrimination was sustaining the racism. And there was no – that would have continued. The libertarians are wrong. That would have just continued on.

And I think – I mean think about all how the private – this private discrimination is being used now. I mean it's, again, not the same quality, much worse to be racist, but we see how progressives act today, how they try and use collective pressure to exclude conservatives from public life. How does the market solve that? A really good example that there is a problem of ideology is Gina Carano posts a tweet, Disney fires her, Lucasfilm fires her. So when an individual employee, her as the star of the show The Mandalorian, says something political, the company says, oh, we can't allow that. That's offensive. You're fired.

You then have the story of this restaurant where one employee wanted to wear a Black Lives Matter mask. And the business said basically the same thing Disney did. You can't have that. You can't wear it. Sorry. So the activists got the business shut down. It doesn't matter if you're the employer or the employee. When you oppose the cult, they come after you. That's what I think is funny about this gun shop story is that you have one gun shop who's saying we don't want to do business with Biden voters. Well, how many

businesses have turned around and said we don't want to do any business with Trump supporters? Like exactly. Maybe not huge corporations aren't publicly saying that but i've seen small businesses on instagram and facebook posting and saying if you're a trump supporter we don't want your money that's the funny there was that remember that video where the vape shop guy screaming at the top of his lungs because guys wearing a maga hat like dude it's one thing when phoenix ammunition is like you know uh hello there good sir a b a Biden voter. I'm sorry, take your business elsewhere. It's another thing when a guy walks with a MAGA hat and the vape store guy goes,

screaming as loud as he can. It's so mundane. That's where discrimination against conservatives is so mundane that we don't even talk about it. It's not even news. It's news when a conservative business discriminates against liberals, not the reverse. I mean, it was meme worthy when the guy was

screaming, get him out of there. And the guy's like, I'm wearing a hat, bro. What's wrong with you? So does this prove that the government intervention didn't work? And now in our current modern day circumstances? Well, no, I mean, there is no government prohibition on political discrimination, right? But there is a government prohibition on racial discrimination. And I think honestly, when you're looking for things like government policies that work that ultimately achieve their objective i think the civil rights act of 1964 you can fairly say achieved its objective i think it accelerated um you know it massively accelerated integration in the jim crow south and um here's radically trans do you think we're regressing especially with some i i forgot

what this picture was from but there was a mandatory meeting. People of color had to go in one place. In Seattle. White people had to go. Yeah, it was in Seattle when I saw this. Do you think we're regressing back into that? Sure, I think we are. But I think that particular type of discrimination is definitely vulnerable to lawsuits.

I think – and Chris Ruffo, I don't know if you've had him on yet. Oh, yeah. Okay, so Chris Rufo, I don't know if you've had him on yet. Oh, yeah. Okay, so Chris Rufo is awesome. And I think he's, whenever the left tries to go so far and actually wants to do racial discrimination on its own, it's vulnerable to having the Civil Rights Act brought in to wield against it. The political discrimination problem, on the other hand, like we don't currently have the law. We kind of need, except in maybe a few jurisdictions, I think California and D.C. have some political discrimination protections. But in general, I think that's got to be a project of the right to say, look, the free market is not going to save us. And I think it's – yeah. Bro, the Republicans are not going to do that.

Mitch McConnell, his professional – I'll give him a catchphrase. Slow down there, Democrats. That's it. That's what he does. I mean he might not do it, but he's old, and he may not be in office too much longer. And I think about... I'm more optimistic on this front, because two years ago, I was saying

platform access is a civil right, and people were calling me crazy, like leftist. They're calling you a commie? Like, Michael Malice did that. He called you a commie? He didn't call me a commie, but he's like, you're coming from leftist background. And I basically redid his podcast. And it's just everybody's sort of come around to where I was two years ago in this radical position.

I had a conversation with a libertarian in Milwaukee at the Mythicist event. And I wasn't there to be at the event. I ended up on a panel because someone wasn't able to make it. But I was in the green room. And there was a bunch of people sitting around. I was talking to this libertarian, and I said, we need regulation of big tech companies in some capacity, be it the ensuring of the freedom of speech, because they've taken the commons, or some kind of regulation that says we need to reform of section 230. And he said, I don't

believe you have a right to tell a private institution what they're allowed to do. And I was like, dude, I've heard the argument, I don't care. If you want to sit back while your ideas are completely erased from the public space, by all means do it because my idea is I'm not a libertarian. I'm actually in favor of regulation. And that's what I'm arguing for. So in five years, when your political ideology is gone, it doesn't exist, who's going to argue for you? But also, I think we need to make a distinction between private business and also monopolies that control information highways, and also monopolies specifically that are connected to governments in many different ways. So I think there's a difference between the cake owner versus Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. I randomly get questions from people who say things like, well, if you think you should regulate Twitter, how could you possibly oppose regulating the cake owner?

I don't. I'm like, well, my answer to that is, I mean, I think that's a perfectly consistent position to think you should regulate both. But I think that it's okay for society to impose larger burdens on billion-dollar companies than on small entrepreneurs. It already does that. We do that in insurance. We do that in common carrier. I mean, there's so many different areas of law that treat – think Obamacare even. Small businesses are treated very differently than larger businesses. So that's one of my first arguments in that when a corporation grows large enough to cause damage to the public, we then come in with regulations. One bakery saying I refuse one thing or another is not causing massive damage to the entirety of the the area however in the in the in my actual position is look when it comes to the bakery what

people need to understand and most people who watch this will probably do they didn't deny service they denied a custom message so the baker basically said you could have any cake that we or we can custom make one for you, but we won't write that. And so they sued over it. My position is, I know a lot of people don't like taxes. Libertarians don't like taxes. Taxation is theft. For the time being, if I'm paying taxes to sustain a common area, common infrastructure, pipes, sidewalks, police, fire department, EMS, all of that stuff. And you are using that infrastructure to support your business. That means we are all contributing to the betterment of your business. I believe you have an obligation to reasonably

service the public. If someone comes in and is committing crimes, screaming, disruptive, disorderly, threatening, all that stuff, by all means, we kick them out because that's an affront to everyone in the public. But if we're all contributing to the space to work and live together, and I come into your shop, I understand the argument about the free speech and being forced to write something. And that's a good argument. So I'm kind of on the fence on that one. But overall, I think businesses should provide a equal accommodation to the members of the public. And I think that's a much closer question than the question of whether or not it's just to regulate Twitter, which I think is very one-sided in favor of, yes, it's perfectly just to regulate them. I mean, they're a multi-billion dollar company that's monopolized a large section

of this public square and that people's first, and right now people's first amendment rights aren't really that meaningful. I mean, I guess now they came back, but before you could go to Parler, then Parler got shut down. Yeah. There's a big difference between private space and government monopolies. That's the thing that we need to really, really beat into people's heads. One of the ways I put it when it comes to social media and why regulation is important is, so like you said, you can go to one baker and he says, no. So you walk down the street to another baker, he says yes. There's market competition. You can probably find something.

Even if Parler exists, Twitter is basically the LA Coliseum football stadium. The president is in the middle of the field yelling all of his ideas to the people and they kick you out and you can walk a few miles away to a small soccer field at a high school where the local principal is giving his ideas. So do you have meaningful access to the president and politicians who are verified using this platform in mass that Twitter actually gives the like will put the position they have as a politician in their under their name? They recognize politicians aren't using a bunch of these other platforms.

So the problem I see is, sure, there may be some competition. There may be parlor. There may be mines. Trump doesn't use any of them. So are you going to be able to hear the president speak? Imagine if when television was invented or radio, if the president was going to give an address, they showed up to your house and said,

you can't have the radio on to hear the president. And they came in and turned it off on you. I mean, people- You don't have access to CBS or NBC anymore. You can't. Yeah, we are. They put a giant metal dome over your house. You can't get any radio waves. We've banned you from collecting this information.

It's crazy to me that they restrict you from even hearing. Maybe the answer is to ban people from posting, but not from following. You know what I mean? Well, I mean, you can make the argument they already do that because you can always like lurk on, even if you've been banned from Twitter, you can lurk and read posts. Why ban you from subscribing to the president's posts

because you said something instead of banning your right to say something? Well, what they did to Trump is like, they kicked him out of the Coliseum and then burned the soccer field down. I mean, he's banned from Spotify. Like, what is he going to do? Like, listen to too much music? He's banned from Spotify. What is he going to do? Listen to too much music?

He's banned from Pinterest. What is he going to do? Plan a wedding? I love when Twitch banned him. Like, oh no, the president's going to play Minecraft and espouse his ideology to kids who are building... If Twitch were smart, they would have just allowed the president on and massively built up their platform.

Donald Trump playing Minecraft. What is this green guy guy doing why is he constantly trying to get me i don't understand that'd been hilarious yeah uh you know i i can uh i pulled up a meme but i don't know there's no really there's no real reason to show it now i guess we should just jump well i want to show it anyway we're gonna show the meme so when we were talking about libertarians and regulation it's the uh libertarian ideas and libertarian candidates meme you guys know this one oh yeah there's you have you ever seen it no it's this very beautiful and gorgeous fox and it says libertarian ideas and then the next one is this scraggly looking all messed up muppet says libertarian candidates i know yeah i i i think it's funny but the reason i want to pull

it up is because we're actually talking about bad libertarian ideals. I'm someone who used to be on the bleeding edge of libertarianism. I worked for the Seasteading Institute. I don't know if you're familiar with that. The idea was to build private islands that were private areas of sovereignty to create competition. There's some funny videos of

libertarian will. They're out there. You can find them. Can we pull some of them up? You can find them. can find them and then correct me if i'm wrong the idea is to live outside of any government jurisdiction and you make your own government at sea right like and that the idea that just having seasteading having an environment where they can compete and people can move around between sovereignties very easily without the law with you know would it would also just put competitive pressure on existing sovereigns to behave better right that was the idea uh It doesn't work, it turns out.

I don't think the precept works because there's no meaningful way to evade the sovereignty of major nations. You can't just have a drug den offshore in the United States and expect the federal government to just run it. You just have to have the CIA run it. Stiltsville. You know Stiltsville in Florida? No, I don't know that. So off the coast of Florida, it's actually not very deep. It's like you can walk very, very far out.

And so, or, you know, sort of walk. You actually, when you go out southeast of Miami, you have to be very careful when you're boating because you could crash into rocks. Like, the water's not very deep. But Stiltsville was where they built a bunch of buildings on stilts and were gambling and partying and drinking offshore from Miami because, you know, there you go. You want to gamble? Found a place to do it. It's in the water.

Yeah, I mean, there's... I thought this was America. That's right. It should be ultimately with the tacit permission of the federal government. This is funny. When people say this is America, they think it's the ultimately with the tacit permission of the federal government. This is this is funny. When when people say this is America, they think it's the land of the free. We were substantially less free like what, 100 years ago in a lot of ways. What you probably know is better than better than I do, Will.

But I believe our modern interpretation of free speech is fairly recent, like 1960. Yeah, I mean, it's been it's definitely been dramatically expanded, although I mean, there was there was definitely there was still a lot of protection for it, even in I mean, there was there were some prosecutions that were really aggressive, like the anarchists, I think. And Abraham Lincoln as well, when he went after people, journalists. Well, I mean, you know, during the Civil War, we did a lot of things that weren't exactly pro liberty. You know, that's crazy. Constitution became meaningless. People died for their speech during the civil war. I mean,

think about the logistics of it. Like we, you don't really think about it, but the entire North and the entire South are fighting and the opposing capitals were two hours away by car, right? A hundred miles away. And,

and so as a result, like Washington DC was very vulnerable, right? Like it's surrounded by slave state, Virginia, and then slave friendly Maryland, right? Like,

you know, there were, I think there were Maryland was a slave state. So it's surrounded by slave states. They were worried about their railroad connection being severed. So, you know. Abraham Lincoln was like, nah, none of that constitution at all. Yeah, so there was like, I mean, they're like, we're in a war.

You're rising up against us. We're not going to commit suicide. Yeah. So you can, I mean, you can say a lot of things. I mean mean you know but lincoln the tyrant i know there's there's some weird like von mises institute stuff from like that's like lincoln was actually a tyrant during the war i'm like he was he was in a civil war that was not obvious he was going to win especially at the outset um they kept losing battles they had

a giant mob of tens of thousands of rebel soldiers as far north as you know as far you know they got to bull run which is gettysburg gettysburg pennsylvania yeah that's like super far north that's crazy and i mean they ultimately lost and they probably i mean as but you know there were times and you know their strategy you know stonewall jackson they wanted to attack philadelphia they wanted to attack yeah this is the crazy thing too about you know when you when you look at what lincoln did i'm pretty sure we're all kind of grateful he did it but it's kind of scary at the same at the same time yeah suspension of what habeas corpus right yeah arresting journalists i mean it was it was the 1860s it was a war the federal government was so much weaker as a general matter i mean you know one of this is

also one of the things i don't like when people talk about like oh we should have a revolution of civil war like one civil war killed five percent of the american population is one of the worst things that ever happened to our country. One of the bloodiest wars in history. Like just in terms of the number of people who died. And second, our federal government is so much stronger now than it was then. I mean,

the Southern armies literally, they just, they marched, sorry, Southern forces just marched into federal armies and took the guns. And that would never happen now. There's no way like any state militia would be able to summon the... Well, but the issue is any modern civil war would be an actual civil war. The United States was

particularly unique in its, you know, earlier stages in that it was a bunch of states that viewed themselves as, you know, fairly equal to the federal government and, you know, to some degree, or at least protecting of their own rights. When you look at some other countries that went through civil war, notably like Spain, it was just different areas adopting the ideology and taking a side. So what we would actually see in the event the US did go to civil war is like when John Podesta had that war game where he said, if Trump wins, the West Coast secedes. It's not going to be like a federal armory and then the National Guard of Washington goes in. It's going to be the federal base is in Washington and is part of the state.

I don't think, I mean, but my point is, I guess I don't think it'll be that easy for whatever side wants to repel. I just don't. I think the federal government of the United States is still, even with all its confusion and incompetence, is the most powerful institution. But it's not going to be one faction against the federal government. It's going to be the federal government split in half. Yeah, see, I guess my point is I don't think that can really happen. It like that there's federal control is consolidated. So it's literally like what

side does the army take? Well, there's states like Texas that have a lot of National Guard troops located inside of them that are openly talking about secession. Sure, but I think I mean that's that ultimately would end up being like guerrilla warfare. Like you could see like guerrilla revolutionary type stuff. Insurgency. Insurgency.

But I don't think you could see, I don't think you could see anything resembling where you had like, you know, the Civil War was two armies, right, you know, of tens of thousands of people showing up in public and shooting at each other. But look, so stop, like don't think about it in terms of what America did in their Civil War don't think about it in terms of what america

did in their civil war because it was very unique in terms of global civil war back then it was a bunch of different state with states with state identities sure today we're the united states like uh it's that it's that line from national treasure one of the most brilliant quotes a famous famous man what's what's the character's name tom gates or whatever from i don't know nicholas cage's character yeah he said before the civil war people would say the united states uh are after the civil war they would say the united states is it stopped being plural it united states became the name of a single nation as opposed to a reference to different states yeah i don't know if that's actually true it was was just from a movie. But the general idea, I think, to make, you know, to fit into this analogy is right now

we are one country. The states' rights are relatively meaningless compared to what the United States is. People don't vote in local elections. I mean, they do. But most people don't even know who their congressperson is or who their senator is or who their state senator is or who their mayor even is. Isn't that crazy? I wouldn't say everybody, but a lot of people probably have no know who their congressperson is or who their senator is or who their state senator is or who their mayor even is isn't that crazy a lot of people not i wouldn't say everybody but a lot of people probably have no idea who their mayor is or who their sheriff is yeah so but i'll tell you this they've they probably know who like chuck schumer and nancy pelosi or at least heard of

them federal level politicians have basically replaced local politicians because we're becoming one country so you look at the concern i suppose and and it's reflected in the decisions being made in dc why are they vetting the national guard because they're scared that there are certain groups that are aligned with the trumpism faction they actually do fear that federal military forces might actually split or there could be like the way it happens isn't like one day a bunch of people in the army or marines or whatever say we hereby declare ourselves for Trump nation. What happens is confidence breaks. People don't have faith in the system from mass demoralization. They reject orders or are ordered to do so. They're ordered to do something they don't want to do.

Maybe there's a town in middle America and they're refusing this draconian lockdown, saying we refuse, our people are suffering, and then certain military are ordered to do something they don't want to do, and that causes a fracture. The Civil War took place over a decently long period of time. People look at history and they view it in a condensed matter, like all of a sudden it just happened. I think, what was it, like 20 years of strife, conflict, back and forth in government until finally one congressperson caned the other guy. And then ultimately it led to, I think, seven states seceded and still we didn't have a civil war. It was only after this recession already happened, then Fort Sumter, when the union refused to bring their troops out, after that happened, more states then broke away and it

caused a rapid collapse. So in the event something does happen, I think people need to, for one, don't think it needs to be armies. Like it doesn't. It could be fifth generational warfare. We could literally just be in the modern equivalent. We use the internet, we use propaganda, it's information war. Or it could just be radically different than anything you've ever experienced. Yeah, I won't rule that out. I got to tell you, man, look, they're telling us right now that they're going to give us a $1,400 check. Well, I shouldn't say us because it's not coming to me, that's for sure. They're going to give the average working class person $1,400. I threw it by my mouth a little bit when I heard that because I'm like, dude, I complained about the mass printing of money, but come on. The American people have been

have been taken taken a boot up the butt from from these lockdowns. The very least we can do is borrow from ourselves. I understand mass printing is bad. But if it's going to the people to essentially give them the ability to facilitate the economic exchange, then the debt is accrued by the American people to keep the machine churning. Instead, they're doing this mass printing of money, sending money overseas, and then not giving anything to the American people for like six months. At a certain point, someone's just going to go like, I'm mad as hell. I'm not going to take it anymore. They're going to go out their window and they're going to scream in rage or worse. I mean, you know, it could be. I don't know. I mean, I guess I'm like, I don't think that's

as likely as just sort of continued, you know, continued banal awfulness. Well, another thing to really kind of consider here is I know a lot of people like to see this between the left and the right. I think it's even going to be beyond that. I think it's going to be elements of the left eating themselves. And I think that might even get pretty violent coming up because the level of this stain and unpopularity that this president has is huge. You look at the comments, you look at the responses, you look at, yes, he was the most voted for president in all of American history ever ever but it doesn't really reflect on the excitement there's no one excited about it the only thing that they have now is this trump gravy train that's it's on its last drips they're still trying to milk it as much as they can with the

9-11 commission about the insurgency and trump but that's not going to work and there's going to be a lot of people pissed off disenfranchised and i think if there is going to be a lot of people pissed off, disenfranchised. And I think if there is going to be a further escalation of conflict, of violence, which again, we should do everything in our power to prevent, I think it's first going to foment within the left versus the left. And I think that's going to lead a spark that's going to be very interesting. And I think that's maybe one reason why we have these troops still staying inside of the Capitol. So as far as the media wants to always keep dividing and conquering people, they have a debt of accountability.

They overpromised and they're not going to deliver. And then people are going to realize that and they're going to be very angry. Well, that being said, we should go to Super Chats, huh? Yeah. If you haven't already, smash the like button because it really really really does help um i think it's important people know that just interaction commenting just you know engage with the channel and uh subscribe hit the notification bell share the share the podcast if you really do like it don't forget to go to timcast.com become a member because we'll have a bonus segment up i gotta stop saying that bonus it's exclusive segments of the show

sometimes they go long. If we get into like a heated debate, we did about religion. It went for an hour. It was really fun. And we talked about, I think, what was the other one? I can't remember. Aliens or something. But we do that too.

So now we're going to read comments from you. So get your super chats in. We'll try and read as many as we can. We got Justin Bartlett who said, doing my part to contribute to culture with a weekly podcast called The Dime Store Cinema. Tune in if you're tired of rotten tomatoes. Love you all. Very cool idea.

I like that. All right. Let's see what else we got. Matthew Hammond says, seize the endowments and the wealthy's investment nonprofits. Oh, somebody's been reading my book. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So seize the endowments.

I mean, I'm really tired of the universities. And I mean, I'm reading this book, Days of Rage. I've mentioned this to you before the show, but it's about the 70s weather underground. And it's the same as Antifa, the same people. But here's the difference. They stopped. They finally came out from underground, got like three-month probation. And then they went to work as professors at universities.

Shock. Like Bill Ayers was a professor at uiuc bernadine dorn was a law professor these people were terrorists yeah terrorists were terrorists i mean i don't mean who knows if they're still working on bombs but well no i mean the way i put it is like if you eat some human does that mean you were a cannibal or are you a cannibal a good fair question i don't know but if you kill one person are you a murderer or were you a murderer like we're paying? You know if there were four public university taxpayers are paying for children to be educated by terrorists Didn't Andrew Cuomo pardon a liberal activist bomber that's now working for BLM

That was Clinton though Clinton pardon that person Clinton I think also Andrew Cuomo in a separate incident Barack Obama Obama pardoned Oscar Lopez Rivera, who was the head of the, I forget exactly what the thing was, but it was the Puerto Rico Liberation Front. They attacked Congress. You want to talk about an insurrection? They literally shot at Congress. Sure, but come on. Donald Trump pardoned Roger Stone.

I mean, come on. That guy is like, he's like Dr. Evil. I mean, I did not like Trump's pardons. He pardoned Kwame Kilpatrick. They were terrible. He didn't pardon Assange, but he pardoned Kwame Kilpatrick. He pardoned really bad people. Yeah. Oh, and the New Jersey fraud doctor,

the medical, Mulligan or something? Blackwater mercenaries? Oh, God. His pardons were awful. But, you know, hey, he didn't pardon Puerto Rican terrorists yeah okay who attacked Congress I don't know man

that Roger Stone he's pretty bad he's so dangerous they needed to raid his home with the FBI because they knew how big of a threat he was

with the help of CNN 6 in the morning and CNN had to be there they had to be just in case because we all know Roger Stone would come out

guns a blazing he'd be like Rambo and they knew it because of their groundbreaking investigative journalism. Yeah, that sounds right. All right, let's see where we're at.

Not Bob Saget says, Parler is a fed honeypot. Also, Trump won MAGA. I don't think Parler is a honeypot. I don't think so. I think they're all tracking you and all spying. You're saying Trump won on a YouTube channel and you think Parler's the honeypot? Yeah. I think the FBI is reading the Tim Kass comments, guys.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yeah. Well, so Michael Malice tweeted something where he was like, to the TSA agent who recognized me from Tim Kass, he's like, you were nice, but I hate your job or something like that. Thanks for being nice even though I hate your job or something like that. Thanks for being nice even though I hate your job. Well, they're not reading. They're databasing everything.

And then if they need to go back, they will. They sure can. All right. Astronaut Kitty says, is Ian laundering Tim's warehouse full of beanies? The warehouse is not full of beanies.

It is full of our pillow. We have the very first prototype. If you want to see it, go to Instagram.com slash TimCast. And it's the latest post breaking down our plan for the OurPillow product line. Groundbreaking. We are going to be, when we do launch, we're getting the domain set up. We're going to be running ads for this.

It will come in a box. It will be a burlap sack in a box full of packing peanuts and we're going to provide very detailed instructions on how you can build your own howler pillow so it's a very complicated process of pouring packing peanuts into the burlap sack and stapling it shut yep and you think i'm joking i mean the whole thing is a joke for sure but i'm going to build this website i'm going to be selling these things and it's going to be hilarious and we're going to spray paint the revolution fist on it i love it and we're going to make selling these things and it's going to be hilarious. And we're going to spray paint the revolution fist on it. I love it.

And we're going to make them prohibitively expensive. And then if people buy them, I'm just going to laugh. Like, because I guess if you want to get it, it's a luxury item, but it's like the most brutal pillow ever. We're doing it. It's happening. And we're going to have tons of them. We have one.

We have a prototype. Our pillow. Mavro St. John says, might not get seen, but I live in Portland and I can confirm that any of the snow over here can throw the whole system out of whack. Anyone who stops emergency services

are the real bad guys. Yes. You guys hear about that? Yes. They were stopping emergency services in Portland? Antifa pushed snow up to the garage door

of a police station so the vehicles couldn't get out. Jail. Evil. Yes. Believe it or not, right through jail.

Yes. But no, no, here's the thing. Seattle is not equipped for snow. It never snows there. And it's extremely steep hills. When I lived there, it was a light flurry. The whole city shut down. Buses were stopping.

People were being warned, like, keep your cars, you know, brakes, wheels turned. A little bit of snow. And these hills are ridiculously steep. Cars start sliding down and crashing. So for people who live in Chicago, New York, or in the Northeast or whatever, people in the Midwest familiar with snow probably think it's no big deal. Like, oh, whatever. The police can just drive through it.

Not in places like Seattle. And Texas right now as well got that huge snow. They're not equipped for this. They're not going to invest heavily in snow infrastructure when it snows once every 10 years. I guess Abilene's out of water right now. Who is? Abilene. The city of Abilene in Texas has no water.

Well, there's snow, right? They do have snow. It's true. Nate Hammer says CNN reported the FBI was having trouble bringing murder charges on February 2nd because there was no evidence of blunt force trauma. Interesting. And that's crazy. Dr. Doctor says, breaking sources close to Nancy Pelosi state she has admitted that she is actually Skeletor and resides in Snake Mountain with her best friend, Tuck Schumer,

a.k.a. Beastman. And together, Joe Biden, a.k.a. Mechaneck, will capture Castle Grayskull. And the source close to Nancy Pelosi is a homeless guy out back who was about 50 feet away from her when she was talking. He told me everything. I mean, that's just that's really big if it's true. I could see it.

I could see it being true. Bring me He-Man. With the homeless guy. I don't know any lines from He-Man. I was too young for that. The sinister sibling says, I'm just thinking now. We've got my pillow. We have our pillow how how

long before someone say someone makes mine pillow they actually did that the left made a joke where they're mocking mike lindell yeah so uh we do have an actual our pillow but it's just a design uh if you go to timcast.com and click shop it brings you to the store and there is just a regular indoor throw pillow and it's got a funny little graphic where like the my is crossed out it says our but we actually are going to be making making our burlap sack our pillow kits you have to make it yourself we were originally going to send them to you pre like assembled with you know staples shut but then i figured it's probably more insulting to make you do the work the point is the pillow is brutal we do nothing for you and it's expensive but it has the right ideology. Yes. So you have to buy it.

All right. Sonny James says FBI, CIA, a joke, been a joke. Now we are supposed to go to war with China. Why? Our own government and their state-owned media does to us what China does to the Chinese. Only difference, CCP is openly racist and selfish. You can't even defend your own

property here. Yeah, man. Yep. Yep. Yeah. Cole Marshall says, Tim, you once talked about pots being used on places like Reddit in order to push certain ideas. You don't seem to reference it often.

Why? Do you mean bots or sock puppets? I don't reference it often. I mean, when I need to reference it, I suppose I do, but I'm not going to randomly bring it up unless there's a reason to bring it up. But yeah, sock puppet accounts. They're called sock puppets. They're fake accounts that look like regular people, but they're, you know, one guy will

have 50 accounts and then claim it's, you know, different people. Not Heisenbear says, I gave $500 to Sicknicks GoFundMe. Maybe we can blame the stress of the situation on his death. I feel furious that I was lied to. Why wasn't the go fund clear on his death? And why would you need anonymous sources for this story? The immediate defense on the left is, oh, he had a stroke immediately

following what happened. I'm sure that was unrelated. I mean, they said it was. Do you have any evidence of that claim? Like, we don't, I mean, or is it the same anonymous law enforcement sources that lied to us in the first instance right like i i think when they said unrelated it's because they assessed what caused the stroke and said it was unrelated like did they just add that word for no reason i suppose so r Ricky Bobby says,

Hey guys, thanks for all you do. Tim, FYI, the OK symbol, 100% a symbol representing white supremacy. For example, both correctional officers and inmates recognize it as such. Trust me, I would know. Just some insight. Maybe now it is.

Maybe that's what we're talking about. I mean, it's sort of, they memed it into being one. I remember, right? It started as a meme, didn't it? Yeah, it did. Yeah, it was, I forget, Mike Ma or something like that, who, I think he was ultimately responsible for creating this 4chan meme to like, he was like, we're going to. Because Trump did it.

Yeah. So we're going to deceive journalists into thinking that the OK symbol is a white supremacy meme. And journalists were like, well, that's really silly of you because now we can call you all white supremacists. Yeah. So that was a huge cell phone. I've heard from so many of these people who think, you know, yeah, but it's funny because they're dumb and they don't realize what it means.

And I'm like, dude, the media knows what it means. They're laughing at you because you've given them a weapon to convince regular people who don't know what it means. Right. Why would you do that? People don't understand optics and information war and propaganda. And the journalists were just like, oh, thank you so much for doing this. You know, your own worst enemy. What's this?

GG. At this point, TMZ has more credibility than NYT. That's the world we live in now. That tabloid papers are more likely to send reporters to investigate and find proof than the paper of record. Isn't that crazy? Well, this is actually, I want to bring Jordan in on this because like you, Jordan did, you know, actual journalism along with many other daily caller, daily caller people like going

to riots and the New York Times was just sitting on their ass doing nothing. New York Times reporter was in one of the riots that I wasn't at but I heard this story from someone who was there and the New York Times reporter left because it was unsafe. So the New York Times did not report what happened because they said it was not safe for the reporters to be there.

And was it like a leftist riot? Yeah, it was one of the BLM riots. Did they publicly write a story saying it was too dangerous? Of course not. Of course they didn't. So what they do is they'll just grab tweets from the Daily Caller while simultaneously insulting them as a right-wing, far-right publication. Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller, a far-right media outlet, had this tweet.

That's why you know it's fake. BLM is peaceful. Yeah. All right. Lou Sassel says we need to shift the culture with more truthful, factual documentaries and movies based on real events. Use the power of presentation to red pill people seeking these genres of entertainment. That's that's yes, absolutely. Yeah, I saw somebody suggesting we needed better.

Like we needed some very good docudramas about like the Red guards in china and the cultural revolution oh yeah absolutely i know poland did something on katyn we should be doing something in english on katya the katyan massacre um a lot of things you can do so so we have justin g who says please stop saying assault rifles that is not a real term the media made it up it means nothing means nothing. And full-auto guns are not illegal. Look into it, please. All right, let's issue some clarifications. The term assault rifle originated in Nazi Germany. It was created, I believe Hitler coined the term himself. And so assault rifle is a reference to a selective fire rifle with single burst and full auto. Assault weapon is a term that is relatively meaningless. Assault rifle itself may have been made up a long time ago, but it does reference something specific. As for full auto guns not being illegal, right,

the point I'm making is that selective fire rifles are illegal, but they're not illegal if you go through the arduous task, depending on which weapon it is. I think you can get like an M16, you had to fill out, what does it look like, The tax stamp. What is it called? The class three form or something? They're prohibitively expensive. You can't make them. So just to clarify, what I mean by them not being legal is there's no new versions of civilian full auto. You can buy existing ones by going through a relatively circuitous process that takes

a very long time to do. And then you actually can own these like sometimes ridiculously powerful crew served belt fed machine guns. And I went to an event. There's an event called DEF CON. It's a hacker convention. And they do this thing where they go in the desert. Into the Mojave.

And they just have a shooting range they set up. It's a whole lot of fun. And one guy brought some belt fed full auto. And he was like, as long as you pay for the ammo, you can shoot all you want. It's expensive, because, you know, at the time, I think, I can't remember exactly, I think it may have, 7.62 maybe, so at the time it may have been like a dollar around, probably not, probably like 50 cents. I don't know, I don't know, I know the prices now are getting ridiculously expensive, but you go to the range today and people are like i don't want to shoot that much because

bullets are too expensive like they're hard to come by short supply i mean if it's a dollar a bullet and you shoot how many bullets a minute would that thing shoot like i mean you're spending 100 bucks for a couple minutes yeah just like yeah today it's it's particularly crazy there's a lot of ammo that is insanely expensive because it's just you can't get it it's it's it's like it's it's nuts like i think 30 30 you know not not particularly common to be completely honest but it's like four bucks for one bullet you're like you want to shoot your rifle and you have a 30 30 you know winchester whatever it's like wow man yeah but that you can still you can still get some good price if you know where to look i suppose but it's it's getting it's getting up there man osiris cleaning llc says you can't have guns in dc

because it's a u.s territory the amendments were meant to protect the citizens of several states from the federal government that's false yeah that's a federal constitution the second amendment applies to the federal government the right of a free people to bear arms shall not be infringed. That tell that to DC, right? Like that's the idea that it's because it's a federal, the constitution. There are areas where like the 14th amendment was targeted primarily at the

states in the aftermath of the civil war. That was passed in 1865. The second amendment is part of the bill of rights passed with the constitution. Like that's, that's just wrong. Sorry. Sorry, commenter, but you are incorrect. Someone's wrong on the internet?

No. Twisted Ninja says, does anyone remember that time that Andrew Cuomo murdered all of those old people and covered it up instead of using the floating hospital that the president sent? I remember. And we now know the reason he covered it up was because he was worried Trump would launch a federal investigation and it would help Trump win.

Wow. So it's Trump's fault. Oh, yeah. Of course. Yeah. All right. It's kind of crazy that we just see it all happening right in front of our faces. The corruption, you know, it's just murder, man, murder.

Like he killed these people. His press conference today, he was like, we reported all the deaths or we reported the deaths. Or he said something really like twisted and weird in this press conference. It was a disaster. I think he said something akin to their old people. They die. Who cares? Yeah.

He said, who cares? They die. They die in a hospital, a nursing home. Who cares? Oh, my God. These people are so stupid. Who cares? Who cares?

My goodness. Philip Somnit says, hey, Tim, love the show. I'm giving up YouTube for Lent, so I won't be able to watch for a while. Keep telling the truth. Whoa, whoa, whoa there, my friend. If you can't watch on YouTube, go to TimCast.com

and become a member for exclusive segments. But more importantly, all of this content from my other YouTube channels, YouTube.com slash TimCast and TimCast News, they're on iTunes, Spotify, all the podcast platformscastnews. They're on iTunes, Spotify, all the podcast platforms. And this show is actually on iTunes, Spotify, and all that as well.

So if you want to just listen to the show, we put them up immediately after the show. Just listen on the podcast. Yeah. Then you don't got to go anywhere. Andrew says, you talked about HR 127. Please look up HR 1.

Yeah, what is that? Do you guys know what that is? That's the election reform one. Right, right, right. The national vote-by-mail stuff. The national Republicans never win an election again? Is that what it is? Yeah.

It's weird how they want to do that after winning. It's almost like they want to wield their power to prevent Republicans from ever having power again. That sounds right. You know. Bottled Water says, Do you need someone to focus on the ufo uap task force there is a lot going on and if you want someone to help let me know uh i think we're actually we're planning on expanding and doing more podcasts so we have just timcast.com for

now but the goal is to actually make more site more uh websites and uh we want to launch a weird and i don't know the right way to describe it is but we want to talk about crazy conspiracies and ancient aliens and ufos but from like a rational skeptic kind of perspective so you know i think too much of the enthusiasm around a lot of these things is very much desperately wanting to believe it so like ghost hunting, for example, they have like the electromagnetic frequency detectors. Like who determined that tracks ghosts? You just randomly decided to grab something. Now I want like a rational approach to what is paranormal phenomenon? Do we have experts and scientists who can tell us why is

it that people experience these things? I'll tell you one thing. They say that ultra low frequencies could be a reason why people have hauntings or ghost sightings. Because there's something that's causing this ultra low frequency sound to go through you. Which can mess with your brain. So people in specific areas might see ghosts when it's really just natural phenomena. We want to explore that stuff. So the answer is absolutely. Maybe.

We have jobs at TimCast.com. Admittedly, it's not on the front burner right now, so I don't know who's going to get to it. But we're trying to build as much as we can. We have a lot we have a lot going on that's making things relatively difficult. Joe Spinella says original intent of the Second Amendment clearly states I should have the same long rifle as my standing army and cannot be infringed, period. That doesn't change. Government doesn't have the rights and cannot administrate my property. Well, there's a lot of people with guns in uniforms who will stop you if you try to defend your rights in certain areas. It's absolutely insane. Bare arms, literally holding it and

walking around. Well, I mean so to a slight correction there right like the fifth amendment says the government cannot take your property without due process it doesn't say it cannot take your property right right like people often forget you know how does the government have the power to do this like people ask me how the government has the power to regulate big tech i mean like have you read the commerce clause it's a big old power uh think the taxing power a big old power it says the governor has the right to tax you and yeah um so it has a lot of power it has constraints on that power and really the thing the way to think about it is the powers are generally in the constitution itself and the

restrictions the limitations on that power in the bill of rights and so the second amendment is one key limitation well there you go gareth green says Bay, and Friends. I support the right of any private property owner to discriminate on whatever basis they like. No one has the right to step foot on property they do not own. There is no right to a motel room. We must tolerate that legally. Yeah, that's a normative claim that's wrong. Right? Like, I guess, no, I shouldn't say wrong. Disagree? Right. Like, I guess. No, I shouldn't say wrong. Just disagree. I disagree like vehemently. And I think that I think it's OK to say that. Actually, no, I don't think you should be able to turn away people from your hotel because they're black. I think that's wrong and immoral. And I think it's perfectly legitimate for government to put a stop to it and to make that behavior illegal. I think, you know, I've really thought about why we had these laws. And when I read your story about Lyndon Johnson, it made me kind of realize if if look, if you want to create a community somewhere on an island or it's getting increasingly difficult

to do because the world is just a lot of people and jurisdictions have been formed. So I understand that argument. That makes things tough. But if we're, even if you go to the middle of nowhere, people argue this. Yeah, well, even if I go to like the mountains, the government still comes for me. And I'm like, because you're still in a country guarded by all the missiles that all our taxes pay for and everything. So look, I get it. It's rough.

We were born into a system paying a subscription fee. But the way I see it is you get 16 years of essentially partially free living where people contribute to your existence. You get to use the road, the sidewalk. You get to go to schools and it's paid for through public contributions. And only then do you have to enter the workforce and start contributing taxes to that system. I think the best argument against taxes is that no one ever chose this. But you didn't choose your parents either. Right. And they have the right to discipline you. And I think that, you know, you really can go out into the middle of nowhere and kind of do whatever you want.

I think people who argue that probably have never done that. Like, I mean. Within reason. I mean obviously. Look. We talked about the story. Where a guy had a tank. With a full auto 50 cal. Like 50 BMG.

And I can't remember where he was. But the police got a call. Of like. He was shooting into a lake. The cops pulled up. The guy stopped shooting. Waved. And asked if there was a problem.

And they go. It's your property? And he goes. Yes sir. And they're like. Have a nice day. And they left. Like. You can live in the middle of nowhere. a tank with 50 bmg full auto and so long as you take care of all the legal process to it nobody really cares

you're doing it i mean we we still ultimately do live in a very free country and i'm trying to fight to preserve those freedoms and but and have them be meaningful uh you know in areas like social media but yeah we shouldn't forget i mean this is as free as there haven't been many free countries in the united states that's still true historically speaking as well and when you travel around the world you really do realize the the few freedoms that we have we should value and protect at all costs and i mean it's also one other thing to be scared of is a weak sovereign like that. Somali, you know, people are like, well, Somalia is no Somalia is bad. It's a mess.

I've been there. I've been there. It's not nice. It's not nice. Nothing worse than living under a weak sovereign that is in the middle of a civil war. I mean, your rights are constantly changing depending on which warlord is ascendant. Remember when Conan O'Brien went to Haiti to prove that Trump was wrong and he went to like this luxury resort with armed guards and then filmed himself in the water? Like, it's great here.

It's like, dude, wasn't there like an earthquake that led to a massive like the UN caused a cholera outbreak and then like covered it up? Nice. Like Al Jazeera broke that story. Isn't it interesting how whenever some lib wants to prove that some terrible place is actually wonderful, they show you a photo of the ocean, which is not the country. Right, right, right. Like, there's a bunch of water. You know, Anna Navarro did that. She's like, Africa is so wonderful. View of

the ocean. How about you turned around and look at the actual country and show what it's like? Well, Lou did that. No, I was like, I did a full documentary about Somalia. That's what I mean. You showed the country. The honesty of it, yeah. Oh, I remember that. It was good. I was on the beach front, too, and met a Canadian there.

It was kind of weird, but met a lot of crazy interesting people, even expats who moved away from the West back to Somalia. I was in Thailand covering the monarchists versus the parliamentary uprisings. And I was with some vice journalists. This one vice journalist was telling me what was going on and explaining how she overheard someone yell, F the king, and then immediately went, like, covered her mouth, realized it doesn't matter what the context is in Thailand. If you say any string of words that disparage the royal family,

it's called les majestes, and it's a crime. Les majestes. Majestes, is that what it is? Yeah, you go to jail for that. Yep. Even saying, I can't believe someone said, F the king. You're under arrest. You said those words.

That's crazy. I don't want to live in a place like that. Get in there. I remember flying. Fun to visit. I remember flying out of Thailand, and as the plane's on the tarmac the stewardess goes on the intercom she's like i'm so sorry i regret to inform you our king has died and then it was the time you were there uh no this was six months after the fact so i'm flying there and she's like

i'm so sorry oh my god we're taking off like what the hell's going on here like and she's like you know our supreme leader has died and i'm like okay can i go back to sleep now okay uh so well it was long after but still they had this mourning period which was extremely long yeah and i and i will say too um i'm probably pronouncing the name wrong but king pumipon was apparently a really awesome guy he was trying to bring literacy to the poor and really help them out. People really did love him. Even the people who were protesting against him, the ones who would absolutely disparage the monarchy

in violation of the law would actually be like, but we really do like the king. He's a good dude. We just need to change the system. Even the people who didn't like it were very much like, he's red. Now his son's taken over and that sentiment's kind of changed. We were working on a documentary for Vice, they kept throwing it back to us because they were like, the way you've described the king's son is illegal in Thailand.

And we were like, why? We're pointing out other people have criticized him. You can't do that. So we had to find ways to critically compliment him, like make it sound like it's positive, but it's actually not. And it was really, it was really, really funny. Like like i can't remember exactly what we said but we said he some some view him not as a god but as a demigod and that was supposed to be i was like it what is this doesn't he have like a team of concubines right is that i don't know the same person i remember

hearing some wild stuff uh i don't mean that was older thailand not recently though i don't know but i'll tell you this apparently even me just telling you the story means i can't go back to thailand but it's fine because i was explicitly told after doing that documentary i was never able to go back there again like i was advised by security organizations like you don't want to go there because the doc we did actually got a bunch of traction and they mocked like it made the monarchists look really bad i guess so they were like yeah they're not gonna want you back and if you go they might try and so you shouldn't go to thailand ever again i'm like all right well i'm grounded he has a team of concubines it's yeah the current

one yes who was it who had was it gaddafi he had those like those those lady assassins he had like a blonde swedish nurse gaddafi uh gaddafi, yes. That was his main chick. Who was it? Bottom. Was it Mubarak? Which one had all of those female assassin type guards? That was, I think, North Korean leader, wasn't it? No, no, no, no, no.

It was one of the North African dictator guys. No, I don't remember. Was it Mubarak? Maybe someone in the comments will tell us. But Gaddafi, he had a very bodacious nurse. Bodacious? What does that mean? I don't know.

I love it. Endowed? She was well endowed. Yes, there you go. Beautiful. With bazongas. Readout Production says, Have you heard of the West Virginia Mine Wars,

a culmination of labor disputes in the early 1920s, started with a shootout in a town that opposed coal companies, ended in largest U.S. insurrections and civil war. I didn't know about that. I don't know if it ended in... I mean, if it ended in civil war... I mean, I know

there was, like, rebellions, and it was put down by the federal government big time. I think. Al Fivre, I'm pronouncing your name wrong i'm sure says please try to get maj toure on the show he's an amazing dude black guns matter founder for training for firearms for minority communities ran for office as a libertarian in philly super intelligent and we did have him on the show we had him yeah he's a rad dude yes yeah he's cool i want to come on with a libertarian sometime and argue with him them. Do it. Yeah, maybe. That would be fun.

Black guns matter. Well, I mean, on that point, I agree with him. I don't really have any... Like, you know. We can hit up Robbie. Yeah, get Robbie on. We'll do another debate. Robbie's cool, dude.

I like Robbie. Yeah, he's a pretty red guy. I just completely disagree with him on the regulation thing. But other than that, he's pretty spot on. Right, like he's not the only person who's wrong about something. Yeah. That's fair. He got the Covington thing.

He was one of the only journalists to actually get Covington. Yeah. He nailed that one. Bobcat says, Tim, would you hire someone whose only journalistic experience is serving in an army recon unit, then joining a private intelligence company for beer money in college? If so, where do I send my resume? That's actually a really good resume. That's good to me. Would you hire someone only with extensive recontent well when we start hiring i don't know you know building this thing out kind of is kind of a go with the flow thing and you know to be

completely honest we're just absolutely swamped with launching our pillow company you know it's our pillow company and uh we're going to run these ads i'm i'm trying to i'm trying to get see if ryan long wants to help put together the commercial and uh hopefully we can just do more ridiculous things you know i i i just gotta say this i was thinking about i tweeted at elon musk a while ago i don't know if you guys saw this i asked him i said hey elon musk why haven't you built an iron man suit yet? And he responded, building Starship. Yeah, and I responded, that is an acceptable response. Like, I have nothing to say to that.

He's like, all right. Because that was kind of the point I was making. Like, yo, you're the super rich guy. Like, where's the cool Batman stuff? And he's like, I'm building a Starship. And I'm like, eh. He's literally doing it. All right, well, where's anyone else doing anything interesting to like kind of shake up the system a little bit, not in a crazy, violent way or just kind of in a funny way to make things interesting? Like, you know, the pillow thing, you know?

I mean, are we all just kind of demoralized right now? Just because I mean, I think, you know, I think we're going to start doing that. It's been weird every you know you think about how our whole country kind of the combination of covid and trump made our whole country focus on politics in a way that i think it never had before yeah um you know team sports got way less popular its ratings went down yeah still down yeah and so politics kind of became replaced sports for a lot of people as their primary thing mode of consumption but that's not it's ultimately not like what produces innovation certainly i was thinking where's the silly commercial where's the silly billboard where's the you know just like the interesting out of like just the weird

the like life's so boring no one does anything you know it's like everything's so predictable let's make it let's make you know what i think we'll sell a bunch of these pillows i gotta be honest they're not bad no no joke like packing peanuts in a burlap sack surprisingly works i like i had a lot of people telling me like dude i think you think it's bad but it's probably going to be a really cool pillow like in terms of temperature because it's foam and the heat's going to dissipate very easily through the holes of the set the burlap might be a little rough laying on because you know it's burlap but probably comfortable i tried it out you know you could maybe make it a linen bag or something like that well it's got to be replaced the packing peanuts i think that would be replace them with

what with mike lindell's patented film that's right right. Yeah. I don't know. Packing peanuts are dirt cheap. True. And all we got to do is send people a box with a folded up burlap sack with a revolution fist on it in a box of packing peanuts and instructions and a warning not to use it as a pillow. And we take no responsibility for anything that happens to you for keeping this. I don't think the FTC is going to be okay with that. Sorry. Saying what? Don't use it as a pillow yeah we're gonna have to get a lawyer and like make sure we go through it properly right you might have to rename the product or quasi pillow yeah i mean because

you call something a pillow on the title and then it's you say but we don't you can't use it as a pillow that's gonna be like just trade trade deception. Really? Sounds familiar to like other... What if on the website we just have something that says like very clearly this is a joke. It's a gag product. You can absolutely buy and do whatever you want with. Just recognize we need less regulations. You have to be very clear about that. Like when they're buying it, I'll say this is literally a burlap sack

packed with packing peanuts. If you want to sleep on that, by all means do it. We're just trying to be ridiculous with this. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I think that would work. What if you spell pillow incorrectly?

Spell it with one L. That wouldn't solve the issues. That wouldn't solve the problems. Right, right, right. Yeah, we were brainstorming ideas for the commercial, and I was like, no, we still have legal requirements on like, even though it's clearly meant to be ridiculous, it doesn't matter because some people might not understand that right so because i was like i had one person suggest you should say all proceeds will go to some charity or whatever and i was like no we can't do that

i'll have to say all proceeds go to me so i can buy stuff that i want yeah right yeah that's literally what we'll do you don't want to be deceptive right i mean actually that you know that's an interesting that's kind of how the whole Bannon fraud case happened in Southern District of New York, right? They went out and publicly said nobody was going to get paid. And then Colfage, Brian Colfage, ended up getting paid. Well, all right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to jump over to the exclusive Members Only segment coming up at TimCast.com.

So go there, sign up, and in maybe about an hour or so the next bonus time will be live and you can check us out there. Don't forget to follow me on now you can follow me on parlor assuming get to load properly at Tim cast. And you can check out my other YouTube channels youtube.com slash Tim cast youtube.com slash Tim cast news. This show is live Monday through Friday at 8pm. So we'll be back tomorrow. Don't forget to subscribe, smash that like button, hit that notification bell will you want to give any shout outs to anything um yeah check out the latest pieces of human events we got a couple of pieces up from charlie kirk and david craden on uh the impeachment that are pretty

solid um and please please please uh youtube.com slash human events we're trying to build our own channel right on so jordan buy our. Our burlap sack. Thanks for promoting my company. Did you have anything? All right, sure. Fine. Luke, anyway. No, I'm kidding.

Do you want to mention your social media? Your Twitter. Yeah, I'm Jordy Lancaster on Twitter and DailyCaller.com, Jordan Lancaster. I write every day. So go read me if you're interested. Cool. We also forgot to mention that today is a holiday for people who violated the constitution i think it's important to bring that up um if you like puppies

check out my instagram instagram hold on hold on yes the constitution didn't exist for the first few presidents so uh they couldn't have violated it well that's most sorry most of the people that violate i don't think that's true the The Constitution was written when? 1789. And George Washington was president when? I'm pretty sure it's starting in 1789. Really? Are you sure? I think so.

I think Will's right on this one. I don't think there was a president in the Articles of Confederation system. I'm going to say yes from my own personal opinion based on no facts or evidence at all. That's right. I think so. So what's the verdict on this one? No, yeah, Will's right. Will's correct. You mean Luke was initially right. Can you say that one this one? Yeah, Will's right. You mean Luke was initially right.

I love hearing that phrase. Never wrong. Oh, Homer. Anyway, back on to more... Did you hear I'm right? Back on to more serious matters. So actually, the effective date was just before George Washington.

Oh, interesting. Just about one month was when they were like, okay, we've got to have before George Washington. Oh, interesting. Just about one month was when they were like, okay, we got to have a constitution. So Will's correct. Yes, Will is absolutely correct. Back to more important matters. If you like puppies, my Instagram, LukeWeAreChange is where to go. The t-shirt I'm wearing is a picture of George Orwell that says, boy, did I call it? You could get yours on thebestpoliticalshirts.com.

And of course, I'm a YouTuber. So check me out on We Are Change. Thanks for having me. That's correct. I do include Luke's at on YouTube in the description of all our videos. That include him, because that seems like a nice thing to do

since he is helping us out. He's a wonderful guest. I am Sour Patch Lids on Twitter and Mines. And I'm Real Sour Patch Lids on Instagram and Gab. And I will hand it over to Tim. We'll be over at timcast.com in the members only section coming up in about an hour. Thanks so much for hanging out and we will see you all there. Bye, guys.