Speaker 1: But at least the Constitution remains intact and is there
Speaker 1: to ensure that we have the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: The Second Amendment is there to ensure that we have
Speaker 2: the first Amendment.
Speaker 1: Guns don't protect our free speech. Our free speech is
Speaker 1: protected by the consent of the governed, laid out through
Speaker 1: the Constitution. It's not based on the threat of violence.
Speaker 1: It's based on elections, organizing referendums, and judicial system. Our
Speaker 1: social contract offers many, many avenues to remedy these issues
Speaker 1: and allows sides to be heard and adjudicated. Guns, from
Speaker 1: what I can tell, seem to mostly protect the speech
Speaker 1: of the people holding the gun.
Speaker 3: It's a tool of intimidation. Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, Oh boy, man,
Speaker 3: did you get that one wrong? All right? Look, that
Speaker 3: is the That is a masterpiece of faulty logic. So
Speaker 3: I'm going to break it all down for you, because
Speaker 3: as soon as I saw it, I was like, oh
Speaker 3: my god, this is terrible. This is a terrible argument.
Speaker 3: And on its face, it in fact is quite evident
Speaker 3: how terrible the argument is. For instance, early on in it,
Speaker 3: he says guns don't protect our free speech. Less than
Speaker 3: one minute later he says, and I quote guns, from
Speaker 3: what I can tell, seem to mostly protect the speech
Speaker 3: of the people holding the guns. Yeah, that's the whole point.
Speaker 3: The people that have the guns are actually able to
Speaker 3: speak freely because they can defend themselves. Hence why Elon
Speaker 3: said that the second Amendment protects the first. Now, I'll
Speaker 3: grant you, mister Stewart, that, yes, it is preferable to
Speaker 3: not have to resort to guns. That is what everybody
Speaker 3: would like to stay in the land of. When you
Speaker 3: talk about society, when you talk about the social compact. Yeah,
Speaker 3: once you have a civilization, you try and turn towards
Speaker 3: the court systems to adjudicate differences of opinion or fights
Speaker 3: over contract law, property rights. That's all preferable. But if
Speaker 3: all of that breaks down, which it has throughout human
Speaker 3: history many many times, well, that is when you have
Speaker 3: the final recourse of defense for yourself, your property, et cetera,
Speaker 3: et cetera. That's exactly why it exists. In fact, that's
Speaker 3: the entire reason that America exists. We didn't just declare
Speaker 3: our independence, though we did that as well, we actually
Speaker 3: had to fight for it. Now, I know we would
Speaker 3: all like to pretend as if you can just redress
Speaker 3: your grievances. But when you have a tyrant, that's not
Speaker 3: really an option, now, is it. That's the whole reason
Speaker 3: that our founders put in the Second Amendment. If it
Speaker 3: wasn't necessary, they wouldn't have done that. And let's break
Speaker 3: down some other aspects of this argument, because they were
Speaker 3: all so atrocious. But let's hear from mister Stewart once more.
Speaker 1: Guns don't protect our free speech.
Speaker 4: Our free speech is.
Speaker 1: Protected by the consent of the governed laid out through
Speaker 1: the Constitution. It's not based on the threat of violence.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a mistake, or right off the bat, the
Speaker 3: whole purpose of the state is essentially to take violence
Speaker 3: out of the individual level and make it more systemic.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you're actually being honest about the nature
Speaker 3: of what the state is, it's saying that we don't
Speaker 3: like to have this chaotic violence. We want to have
Speaker 3: regimented violence that is only brought to bear by the
Speaker 3: state under the parameters by which the governed have allotted
Speaker 3: them that power. But sometimes that breaks down at its core,
Speaker 3: what is the state but the threat of violence? Everything
Speaker 3: it does is at the threat of violence. So this
Speaker 3: is just such a pollyanna ish perspective on how government
Speaker 3: works broadly or what the state is itself. It's totally
Speaker 3: detached from the actual nature of the state.
Speaker 1: It's based on elections, organizing, referendums, and judicial system. Our
Speaker 1: social contract offers many many avenues to remedy these issues
Speaker 1: and allows sides to be heard and adjudicated. Guns, from
Speaker 1: what I can tell, seem to mostly protect the speech
Speaker 1: of the people holding the gun.
Speaker 3: So by his logic, you would disarm the people because
Speaker 3: it's not necessary to defend our rights. After all, you
Speaker 3: have this social contract, right, But you're going to leave
Speaker 3: the state with the capacity for violence with the guns themselves, right,
Speaker 3: So you're not actually eliminating the threat of violence, you're
Speaker 3: monopolizing it and you're offering it to someone other than
Speaker 3: the people. Now, for someone who advocates on behalf of
Speaker 3: the little guy, which I will credit mister Stewart with,
Speaker 3: he does that quite often. He has been a very
Speaker 3: outspoken advocate on behalf of the nine to eleven first responders.
Speaker 3: What happened to them? Well, they were kind of left
Speaker 3: in the dust, now, weren't they. And mister Stewart has
Speaker 3: done his best going through the judicial system and speaking
Speaker 3: in front of Congress and trying to demand that these
Speaker 3: people get taken care of, and to some extent it's worked,
Speaker 3: and to some extent it hasn't. Now, I would not
Speaker 3: advocate that he then takes up firearms over it. That's
Speaker 3: not at all what I'm saying. But he has already
Speaker 3: experienced the darkness within the system itself. He understands the
Speaker 3: nature of it. He understands that, in fact, the little
Speaker 3: guy gets stomped by the state, and yet he can't see.
Speaker 3: He can't possibly hypothesize a moment at which you would
Speaker 3: actually require firearms. You can't even theorize about it. No, really, John,
Speaker 3: let's use his own rationale too. I mean, he and
Speaker 3: many on the left have argued ad nauseam that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump is a existential threat to humanity, to this country,
Speaker 3: to democracy. They say it all the time. And if
Speaker 3: he is correct in that assessment, what would you prefer?
Speaker 3: Would you prefer that Donald Trump then disarms you, mister Stewart,
Speaker 3: or you and your private security guards, and leaves nothing
Speaker 3: in between you and this fascistic totalitarian dictator in Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: as they usually refer to him as, would you like
Speaker 3: to have no capacity to defend yourself from the state
Speaker 3: in that environment, Well, the obvious answer is no. You
Speaker 3: would love to be able to either defend yourself personally
Speaker 3: or hire someone to defend yourself when the aspects of
Speaker 3: the state that you favor break down, Well, then what then?
Speaker 3: What do you do? You just beg you plead, you protest,
Speaker 3: you speak out? What if they silence you? What if
Speaker 3: they kick you off of the Internet and the TV
Speaker 3: and everything else. Oh but you can still meet in
Speaker 3: the town square and speak your mind. What if they
Speaker 3: make that illegal? What if they start to round up
Speaker 3: people who attempt to protest? Then what? Ah? So, In fact,
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, the First Amendment is
Speaker 3: at its core defended by the second. That's just a fact,
Speaker 3: and to deny it is to lack all logic or
Speaker 3: understanding of history. And what made America special? Banned from
Speaker 3: you owning it? Totally totally legal and allowed and in
Speaker 3: fact preferred to be possessed and wielded exclusively by the state.
Speaker 3: The state, which I might add is about thirty days
Speaker 3: away from potentially being handed back over to Donald J. Trump. Oops.
Speaker 1: The whole point of a society is guns don't decide it.
Speaker 1: I would prefer at this moment not to trade in
Speaker 1: a government that offers me many remedies for my concerns,
Speaker 1: legitimate or illegitimate, for a situation where my rights are
Speaker 1: determined by how many militia members agree with me.
Speaker 3: And I too would prefer that militias not have to
Speaker 3: march on the capitol to make sure that I'm able
Speaker 3: to speak freely or worship freely. But actually, at its core,
Speaker 3: the entire reason that the state respects our rights at
Speaker 3: all is that we do have the capacity to defend ourselves.
Speaker 3: So while you have this obvious intention to try and
Speaker 3: sanitize the nature of the state and what it is,
Speaker 3: it would be better if you would just be honest
Speaker 3: and say what Maosee Dong once said, which is that
Speaker 3: political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Speaker 3: End quote. That's actually the nature of the state. Now,
Speaker 3: Ze Dong actually said that in a gleeful fashion because
Speaker 3: he wanted to have as big a state as possible
Speaker 3: and he wanted to preside over it. Unfortunately, we have
Speaker 3: the largest state in human history. And if you think
Speaker 3: that it is going to remain a rights respecting organization,
Speaker 3: which by the way it's not currently. But if you
Speaker 3: think it's going to maintain your perception of what it
Speaker 3: does today, if you were to be disarmed, you'd be
Speaker 3: sorely mistaken. You don't have to look very far. You
Speaker 3: could just look at New Zealand or Australia, or the
Speaker 3: UK or Canada and see what happened to them in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty and twenty twenty one. In contrast that to
Speaker 3: what happened to the United States. Now, it wasn't good here,
Speaker 3: but we had it pretty good comparatively, And I would
Speaker 3: argue strongly that the reason for that is that they
Speaker 3: were disarmed and we were not. Now, I understand a
Speaker 3: desire to believe the state is simply there to look
Speaker 3: out for our best interests. But John, of all people,
Speaker 3: after your advocacy on behalf of the nine to eleven
Speaker 3: first responders, you know damn well that's not true. And
Speaker 3: if you know that's not true, then you should want
Speaker 3: to have the capacity for personal self defense and you
Speaker 3: should stop arguing in favor of disarmament because it will
Speaker 3: end in catastrophe, as it always does. Donald Trump went
Speaker 3: on Andrew Shol's show yesterday and dropped an absolute bombshell
Speaker 3: that I had never heard before, and I wanted to
Speaker 3: bring to your attention and discuss.
Speaker 5: We were close to a deal for getting rid of
Speaker 5: nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: It would be so good from all countries or just Russia.
Speaker 5: We were talking about Russia ourselves and China, oh wow.
Speaker 5: And we would then bring everyone else into it, and.
Speaker 6: So you all strongly, you all would get rid of
Speaker 6: your nuclear capabilities d nuclearized.
Speaker 5: Yes, we were going to get more totally because it's
Speaker 5: too powerful, it's too much.
Speaker 3: Now, this is Donald Trump we're talking about, and he
Speaker 3: has a bit of a track record of embellishing stories
Speaker 3: or overstating things, so I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 3: if he's telling the truth entirely. But just to have
Speaker 3: a former president and potentially future one talking about denuclearization,
Speaker 3: you know, drawing down the arsenals at a minimum, and
Speaker 3: doing so with the two other largest nuclear powers on Earth,
Speaker 3: in China and Russia, gave me a lot of hope.
Speaker 3: And I'm stunned that he's never brought this up before.
Speaker 3: So a lot of people are responding to that post
Speaker 3: that I put out about it, saying, well, he's just lying,
Speaker 3: and I'm like, I don't know, if he's lying, I
Speaker 3: think there's a decent chance that he's embellishing how close
Speaker 3: they were to making a deal. But still I think
Speaker 3: that it's probably provable whether or not these conversations ever happened,
Speaker 3: and if it comes out that he was in fact
Speaker 3: just totally making it up, I'll be the first to
Speaker 3: report back to you guys that that's the case. But
Speaker 3: I kind of doubt it. I think he probably was
Speaker 3: having conversations with them about doing so in the fact
Speaker 3: that he's interested in doing so. If you've ever read
Speaker 3: Scott Horton's book Hotter Than the Sun, then you're already
Speaker 3: aware that Ronald Reagan in fact had similar conversations with
Speaker 3: I don't know if it was Yeltsin, I'm not sure
Speaker 3: which leader of Russia it was at the time, but
Speaker 3: they were very close to doing the same thing with
Speaker 3: the USSR what like. That was a very serious conversation
Speaker 3: and they actually came very close to doing so. The
Speaker 3: fact that that is back on the table, particularly given
Speaker 3: that the current administration in Joe Biden, or really the
Speaker 3: State Department that's actually running everything, this very provocative, escalatory
Speaker 3: kind of war footing that our State Department currently has
Speaker 3: with Russia and with China to a lesser extent. Now,
Speaker 3: the counter offer of like, hey, would you like to
Speaker 3: go a different direction? Would you like to have a
Speaker 3: president who's actually talking about denuclearization as opposed to escalation
Speaker 3: with the largest nuclear power on Earth in Russia? Yeah,
Speaker 3: I kind of would like that. I'm gonna be honest
Speaker 3: with you. I would prefer that. In fact, I would
Speaker 3: prefer it tremendously. As Donald Trump might say, it would
Speaker 3: be a huge step in the right direction. Now, will
Speaker 3: he succeed? Probably not. Can anyone who wins the presidency
Speaker 3: actually denuclearize? Probably not. I think that at the end
Speaker 3: of the day, the military industrial complex actually runs this country,
Speaker 3: along with the intelligence agencies, So I doubt any president
Speaker 3: could actually accomplish this. But to have someone who's at
Speaker 3: least giving lip service to it, who's opening people's eyes
Speaker 3: to the dangers of nuclear proliferation, is that not a positive?
Speaker 3: Is that not a step in the right direction? I
Speaker 3: think it obviously is amazing, amazing that that ever happened,
Speaker 3: assuming that it did, and amazing that the potential that
Speaker 3: he could be back in the White House and maybe
Speaker 3: maybe there can be more progress made you know, I
Speaker 3: genuinely doubt that they would ever get rid of their
Speaker 3: nuclear arsenals altogether, because it's always kind of like game
Speaker 3: theory of it. Well, they got rid of theirs, but
Speaker 3: we got to we're gonna keep two. You know, we're
Speaker 3: gonna hide tool away just they won't know. So probably
Speaker 3: unlikely that you could ever get rid of them entirely.
Speaker 3: But if you actually had an agreement where it said, hey,
Speaker 3: we're all gonna we're gonna draw down our nuclear arsenals
Speaker 3: to let's say five, we can all have five monster
Speaker 3: nukes just to make sure no one gets froggy, and
Speaker 3: we'll just leave it at that. Would that not be
Speaker 3: progressed from the six thousand that nuke that uh Russia
Speaker 3: is sitting on right now, or the thousands that America
Speaker 3: is sitting on, or the three hundred plus that China
Speaker 3: is sitting on. Yeah, it'd be a huge, huge step
Speaker 3: in the right direction. So fingers crossed. I rarely get
Speaker 3: to bring a good news. That was a bit of
Speaker 3: good news. Now on the other side of the aisle,
Speaker 3: we got comedian Eddie Griffin taking Kamala Harris to task
Speaker 3: choices America Lion or a crook. I think I might
Speaker 3: be going with the crook.
Speaker 2: Goddamnit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the crook, the crook. He's he's he's got a
Speaker 3: lot of men. He got three baby mamas, forty three
Speaker 3: fold the cases and count selling hot top tennis shoes,
Speaker 3: just like Michael Drudd got shot, just like two drop outs.
Speaker 3: We'll be right back. Eddie Griffin was one of my
Speaker 3: favorite comics back in the day, so I thought I
Speaker 3: thought we'd have a little, uh, it's gonna be a
Speaker 3: more lighthearted episode. I agree with a lot of it
Speaker 3: is to say, man, I do you got this lion fraudulent, transparent,
Speaker 3: just conduit for the regime and Kamala Harris, or you
Speaker 3: got the crook? Now. I think almost all of the
Speaker 3: charges against Donald Trump are total nonsense, so I think
Speaker 3: it's probably unfair to call him a crook. It seems,
Speaker 3: especially after all the investigations he's been put through, he's
Speaker 3: probably not much of a crook in that fashion actually
Speaker 3: at all. But I did think it was interesting, you know,
Speaker 3: Eddie Griffin's take on it, and I wonder, I wonder
Speaker 3: if that sentiment is shared more broadly that in fact,
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, like her true nature, the fact that she
Speaker 3: is such a chameleon that her entire campaign for the
Speaker 3: presidency in twenty twenty has just been obliterated, Like, none
Speaker 3: of the values that she held back then, basically, none
Speaker 3: of the value she held just four years ago does
Speaker 3: she carry forward to today. And when asked about it,
Speaker 3: she really doesn't have much pushback. She just goes, I've
Speaker 3: been listening. I've been listening to the people. I've as
Speaker 3: vice president for the past three and a half years.
Speaker 3: I've been traveling across the country and I've been listening. Okay, great,
Speaker 3: but what happened? Why? Why are you no longer a
Speaker 3: fracking banning, gun grabbing, basically hard left or socialist candidate
Speaker 3: for the presidency as you were in twenty twenty. Oh,
Speaker 3: you were just going around. Oh you believe in consensus.
Speaker 3: So you've been going around the country and you've been
Speaker 3: talking to people, and you realize that those ideas are
Speaker 3: actually really not popular. So now you don't hold those
Speaker 3: values anymore. Well, this is the problem. Is that really
Speaker 3: what we're voting for? At least in my opinion, the
Speaker 3: more educated voters are usually voting for a value system.
Speaker 3: What are your principles? I don't know. I don't know,
Speaker 3: and I don't think Eddy Griffin knows, and I don't
Speaker 3: think most people in America know, And I don't think
Speaker 3: your supporters know either.
Speaker 7: The reason so many voters don't know you is that
Speaker 7: you have changed your position on so many things. You
Speaker 7: were against fracking, now you're for it. You supported looser
Speaker 7: immigration policies, now you're tightening them up. People don't truly
Speaker 7: know what you believe or what you stand for.
Speaker 2: In the last four years I have been Vice President
Speaker 2: the United States. I believe in building consensus.
Speaker 3: So is once again brought to you by our friends
Speaker 3: over at land of biltong dot com. If you use
Speaker 3: the code lockdown or lockdown ten, you can get major
Speaker 3: discounts on the best biltong in the world. It's basically
Speaker 3: South African beef jerkey. It's fantastic if you are on
Speaker 3: a low carb diet, if you just want a high protein,
Speaker 3: healthy snack, highly recommend these guys. Once you try it,
Speaker 3: you will come back. I promise you that this stuff
Speaker 3: is addictive as well. Get out and it happens to
Speaker 3: be good for you, which is the best part. But
Speaker 3: it's really really delicious. Go to landofbuiltong dot com and
Speaker 3: if you use the promo code lockdown or lockdown ten,
Speaker 3: you can get a discount depending on how much you buy.
Speaker 3: If it's over one hundred and thirty bucks, you get
Speaker 3: free shipping, and if it's less than that, if it's
Speaker 3: but it's over forty six dollars, you get ten percent off.
Speaker 3: So lockdown ten at landofbuiltong dot com get you some
Speaker 3: They know that they hate Trump, they're pretty unanimous on that,
Speaker 3: but do they actually know what you believe? And I
Speaker 3: think the answer is no, because I don't know, and
Speaker 3: I have followed your or career extensively for the past
Speaker 3: four years, and I don't have a clue at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, what your actual values are. What
Speaker 3: are your principles? Kamala Harris. My suspicion is that your
Speaker 3: primary driving force behind every policy position that you put
Speaker 3: out is can it get me one ounce more power?
Speaker 3: That's it. That's how you decide your entire list of
Speaker 3: principles is can I get more power over these plubs
Speaker 3: Because let's be honest, you don't much care about us
Speaker 3: when you talk about arresting parents because their kids are
Speaker 3: true in the state of California when you talk about
Speaker 3: or I don't know if you've ever talked about it,
Speaker 3: you've denied it, but it's on the record. It's true that,
Speaker 3: in fact, you were involved in holding exculpatory evidence from
Speaker 3: prisoners on death row. Does that sound like someone who's
Speaker 3: genuinely concerned earned with the American people or in building consensus. No, no,
Speaker 3: actually it doesn't doesn't sound like that at all. It
Speaker 3: sounds like a power med tyrant who will shape shift
Speaker 3: and just put on a different mask for whatever belief
Speaker 3: system will get you more votes and therefore more power.
Speaker 3: And I am not interested in you having any more power.
Speaker 3: In fact, you have too much already. Just to show you,
Speaker 3: I'm not making it up that. In fact, I think
Speaker 3: you're just interested in power, and I think that the
Speaker 3: American people are starting to see through you. Here's CNN
Speaker 3: with the latest update on your campaign.
Speaker 8: We have some new CNN reporting today about what is
Speaker 8: going on behind the scenes inside the Harris campaign and
Speaker 8: more broadly among Democrats who are growing more and more
Speaker 8: anxious about a twenty sixteen redoc CNNs. Pacelle Alparez joins me. Now, Priscilla,
Speaker 8: we were just joking here at the table that anxious
Speaker 8: Democrats happen on a day that ends in why this
Speaker 8: is something that perhaps is warranted given the data that
Speaker 8: they're seeing. Explain your great reporting.
Speaker 9: Yeah, look, that's exactly right, Dana. And this has been
Speaker 9: a campaign that was described by multiple Democrats, allies aids
Speaker 9: to the vice president as a good vibes campaign. But
Speaker 9: what's also creeping in now is that anxiety. The reason
Speaker 9: for that is because these polls are not really moving.
Speaker 9: Despite multiple battleground blitzes, despite the opportunities she has had
Speaker 9: across media outlets, there is still not a lot of
Speaker 9: movement from voters who are moving more towards her versus
Speaker 9: former President Donald Trump. In fact, I had one source
Speaker 9: describe it to me this way, quote, people are nervous,
Speaker 9: they know the polls are tight, and a lot of
Speaker 9: us are having these flashbacks to twenty sixteen too. We
Speaker 9: know when it can go the wrong way and it
Speaker 9: can still feel.
Speaker 3: Fresh, joy vibes and anxiety. That is that is how
Speaker 3: they describe the campaign. And I gotta say that doesn't
Speaker 3: say like a winning recipe, but it does sound like
Speaker 3: an apt description of the average Democrat voter, someone who
Speaker 3: is operating strictly off of vibes and anxiety or in
Speaker 3: some cases vicotin and anxiety medication. I think it's probably
Speaker 3: more the latter, Oh Jesus. So if they're getting nervous,
Speaker 3: that means that they're talking to their friends, they're talking
Speaker 3: to their coworkers, they're talking to their kids, their grandparents, whatever,
Speaker 3: and they're realizing that a lot of people, a lot
Speaker 3: of people are saying, hey, things aren't going so hot,
Speaker 3: and this lady doesn't strike me as a solution to
Speaker 3: the problems that I'm facing. Now you can judge for
Speaker 3: yourself whether or not you think Donald Trump will actually
Speaker 3: help solve any of your personal problems. Probably not many.
Speaker 3: But they've weighed in on Kamala Harris's promises, and I
Speaker 3: don't think they buying it. I don't think that you're
Speaker 3: going to sell them on the lady who was in
Speaker 3: some aspects responsible for the border is all of a
Speaker 3: sudden going to steal the border. The lady that was
Speaker 3: in there for three and a half years is suddenly
Speaker 3: going to remedy the inflation that we still suffer today.
Speaker 3: Do you think that that, in fact she's capable of
Speaker 3: doing so after three and a half years of not
Speaker 3: doing so. The answer is obviously no, no. And then
Speaker 3: when asked does she have any differences of opinion with
Speaker 3: you know what Joe Biden has done? And she says
Speaker 3: nothing comes to mind.
Speaker 8: Well, which you have done something differently than President Biden
Speaker 8: during the past four years?
Speaker 2: There is not a thing that comes to mind in
Speaker 2: terms of and I've been a part of most of
Speaker 2: the decisions that have had impact.
Speaker 3: But you're the change candidate. You're the one that's going
Speaker 3: to improve upon the current paradigm. But everything that's happening
Speaker 3: that by the way, you've been the vice president under
Speaker 3: you can't find any disagreements with Joe bidden You think
Speaker 3: that's a winning sales pitch. Look, I know they have
Speaker 3: the most high paid, high powered advisors that are just
Speaker 3: hovering like vultures around this campaign. I know they do.
Speaker 3: No doubt in my mind, how is it possible that
Speaker 3: you have put together such a non pitch pitch to
Speaker 3: the American people that I'm the change candidate? Joy vibes
Speaker 3: little anxiety, and also, I have no disagreements with Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: How are you gonna do that? How are you gonna
Speaker 3: pull that off? How are you gonna find that balancing act.
Speaker 3: It's so easy you could. You could either say, look,
Speaker 3: I'm not going to address any direct policy disagreements that
Speaker 3: I have with Joe Biden because I'm still serving as
Speaker 3: the Vice President of the United States under him, and
Speaker 3: I'm not going to undermine the commander in chief. That'd
Speaker 3: be a fine answer. I like it'd be a better
Speaker 3: answer then I think everything's going great, but also I'm
Speaker 3: gonna fix everything that's bad right now. That's not an
Speaker 3: answer for sure, that's not Or you can say, you know,
Speaker 3: love Joe Biden. I've had spent the honor of my
Speaker 3: life to serve under him as vice president. However, there
Speaker 3: I do have a different vision, and there are a
Speaker 3: handful of you know, policy positions that I hold that
Speaker 3: Joe either doesn't or was not able to get passed
Speaker 3: because of these sons of bitches in Congress, these Republicans
Speaker 3: that stonewalledus. You know, you can you can still frame
Speaker 3: it in that fashion. She's not doing that either. She's
Speaker 3: just going like I can't. Nothing comes to mind. Everything
Speaker 3: Joe's done, it spend great, come on the exit from Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: That wouldn't have done anything different. There nothing, the escalations
Speaker 3: between NATO and Russia, the fact that we're dealing with
Speaker 3: severe inflation. Nothing, there's no there's no policy disagreements. Well,
Speaker 3: that's a losing pitch because guess what, Kamala, you got
Speaker 3: put into this slot because after Joe Biden debated Donald
Speaker 3: Trump all those months ago, the American people were like,
Speaker 3: oh wow, this guy's a disaster. There's no way that
Speaker 3: we can actually get him across the finish line. He's
Speaker 3: got to go. His tenure has not been very fruitful
Speaker 3: for the American people. You have to differentiate yourself, and
Speaker 3: she doesn't. She's given the opportunity, not once but twice
Speaker 3: in back to back back national broadcasts. She's asked by
Speaker 3: Colbert again, and she says again, No.
Speaker 10: Polling shows that a lot of people, especially independent voters,
Speaker 10: really want this to be a change election, and that
Speaker 10: they tend to break for you. In terms of thinking
Speaker 10: about change, you are a member of the president administration
Speaker 10: under a Harris administration. What would the major changes be
Speaker 10: and what would stay the same?
Speaker 2: Sure, well, I mean I'm obviously not Joe Biden, and
Speaker 2: so that would be one change she will services. But
Speaker 2: also I think it's important to say with you know,
Speaker 2: twenty eight days ago, I'm not Donald Trump. And so
Speaker 2: when we think about the significance of what this next
Speaker 2: generation of leadership looks like were I to be elected president,
Speaker 2: it is about Frankly, I love the American people, and
Speaker 2: I believe in our country. I love that it is
Speaker 2: our character and nature to be an ambitious people.
Speaker 3: She's toast. I honestly don't know how Like, even with fortification,
Speaker 3: I don't know how they get this lady across the
Speaker 3: finish line. She seems completely incapable of coming across as
Speaker 3: a sentient human being, a thoughtful, just normal person. Can't
Speaker 3: do it. Can't do it. She's doing, call her daddy,
Speaker 3: she's doing, Howard Stern. She still comes across as like
Speaker 3: just plastic, like a mannequin, like a deep state mannequin.
Speaker 3: That's the vibes, that's the joyous feeling I get from you,
Speaker 3: is that you're not a real person. And in fact,
Speaker 3: Dave Smith did an episode on this just yesterday saying
Speaker 3: the same thing. And as I'm watching all of her
Speaker 3: media appearances and I'm like, yeah, Dave nailed it. Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris doesn't exist. I don't know who she is. I
Speaker 3: don't know what she believes in, and I certainly don't
Speaker 3: know what she's going to do if given the power
Speaker 3: of the executive branch. I have no clue, but I'll
Speaker 3: tell you this much. It doesn't make me joyous, It
Speaker 3: doesn't make me optimistic, it doesn't make me hopeful. It
Speaker 3: makes me feel as if all of those viral videos
Speaker 3: of you saying how we're gonna double down on basically censorship,
Speaker 3: because that's what she's describing when it comes to social media. Yeah, undoubtedly.
Speaker 3: When you've talked historically about going after guns and banning
Speaker 3: them and certainly assault rifles and all that, yeah, I
Speaker 3: think you'd probably push for that too. You've doubled and
Speaker 3: tripled down on being extraordinarily antagonistic towards Russia but still
Speaker 3: backing Israel. But you know every state department policy that
Speaker 3: exists right now, which is not going very hot. I
Speaker 3: don't know if you've been paying attention, but like a
Speaker 3: quarter of the world's on fire, she's on board with
Speaker 3: all that, so well, I don't know what your actual
Speaker 3: belief system is. I think that the current paradigm is
Speaker 3: disastrous and you would perpetuate it, and that's enough for
Speaker 3: me to say, I hope you lose. Now, this has
Speaker 3: been a fairly favorable episode towards the Republicans and Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: I do have a bit of a critique for mister
Speaker 3: Trump here.
Speaker 5: But this is what you've been waiting for, because today
Speaker 5: I am also announcing that as part of our tax cuts,
Speaker 5: we will make interest on car loans fully deductible. So
Speaker 5: we're going to make it fully deductible the interest payments.
Speaker 5: That's going to revolutionize your industry. This will stimulate massive
Speaker 5: domestic auto production and make car ownership dramatically more affordable
Speaker 5: for millions and millions of work American families. This is
Speaker 5: a phenomenal thing, if I do say so myself.
Speaker 3: Now you're probably thinking to yourself, Clint, he's talking about
Speaker 3: a tax deduction. How could you possibly oppose that? Well,
Speaker 3: you're right, I don't oppose any reduction in taxes, and
Speaker 3: so fine, yeah, give it to us whatever. But let's
Speaker 3: be honest. As someone who was a real estate specialist
Speaker 3: for many decades, mortgage interest tax deduction. It incentivizes borrowing,
Speaker 3: it incentivizes debt, and let me explain why for those
Speaker 3: that aren't familiar with it. Basically, The way it works
Speaker 3: is that years ago, they made it so that you
Speaker 3: could deduct any interest payments made on a mortgage for
Speaker 3: a house. They did so for the same exact reason
Speaker 3: that Donald Trump is detailing there. They wanted to incentivize
Speaker 3: home ownership. They wanted to make it quote unquote more affordable.
Speaker 3: But what does it amount to. It means that you
Speaker 3: are actually punished for paying off your house. Now do
Speaker 3: you think that's a good incentive structure for the American
Speaker 3: people to operate under? I would argue that no, in fact,
Speaker 3: it's not. I would I'm sure I could come up
Speaker 3: with other angles by which you could lower people's tax
Speaker 3: burdens but not incentivize them to remain in debt when
Speaker 3: they otherwise wouldn't have to. Let me just explain, because
Speaker 3: I knew a lot of retirees, because retirees were largely
Speaker 3: the people that were investing with me into the real
Speaker 3: estate market. Because then we would lend it out as
Speaker 3: a mortgage against a property, they would do so with
Speaker 3: their own personal residences because they didn't want to lose
Speaker 3: that deduction, that tax deduction. And I don't blame them,
Speaker 3: that's very rational, But they were all very wealthy people
Speaker 3: that had the capacity to pay off their mortgage at
Speaker 3: any time, and they didn't do it because they wanted
Speaker 3: to maintain that tax deduction. This is the same proposal,
Speaker 3: but now when it comes to cars automobiles, it's going
Speaker 3: to create the same dynamic. It's going to have people
Speaker 3: who borrow as aggressively as possible. I mean, they're still
Speaker 3: going to want to have low interest payments because they
Speaker 3: don't want to pay a crazy amount of interest. But
Speaker 3: it incentivizes people to maintain debt on property that they
Speaker 3: could otherwise exit, payoff and then exit that debt. That's
Speaker 3: not a good thing. I hope that's obvious and logical
Speaker 3: and rational to you guys that yeah, that's not ideal.
Speaker 3: It's not ideal that people remain in debt because they
Speaker 3: want to pay less taxes. It would be great if
Speaker 3: we could get people out of debt while also paying
Speaker 3: less taxes. That's actually the paradigm that we ought to
Speaker 3: be striving for, because that's the foundation by which you
Speaker 3: can create a truly well oiled machine of an economy.
Speaker 3: This debt based economy is the problem. That's the whole
Speaker 3: reason that libertarians and you know, fiscal conservative Republicans oppose
Speaker 3: the Federal Reserve is that they understand that it is
Speaker 3: at its core that's the foundation for the economy, and
Speaker 3: it is based on debt at its base. This by
Speaker 3: president is the same thing. It's going to incentivize additional debt.
Speaker 3: And one other aspect of critique for him, it also
Speaker 3: incentivizes people to buy vehicles that they otherwise would not
Speaker 3: because he's saying the whole the underlying logic for him
Speaker 3: saying this is going to be a boon to the
Speaker 3: auto industry, which I believe he was speaking in front
Speaker 3: of some auto industry folks and he's saying, this is
Speaker 3: going to be great for you guys. We're going to
Speaker 3: build more cars because people are going to be buying
Speaker 3: more cars. Now, is that necessarily a good thing that
Speaker 3: people are buying more cars? Well, it can be indicative
Speaker 3: of a very healthy economy. It can also be indicative
Speaker 3: of a system which is structured in a way that
Speaker 3: incentivizes people to purchase things that they otherwise wouldn't. For example,
Speaker 3: look at housing. When it comes to Federal Reserve policy,
Speaker 3: they maintained interest rates at a hyper low level for
Speaker 3: an extended period of time and incentivize people to buy
Speaker 3: houses that they otherwise could not or would not be
Speaker 3: able to afford. Did that work out great for us?
Speaker 3: And wait on no, it didn't. Will this have a
Speaker 3: similar trajectory of seeming boom and then a bust as
Speaker 3: people who otherwise wouldn't have bought these vehicles because there's
Speaker 3: a recession or something to that nature and they lose
Speaker 3: their jobs and then they allow their vehicles to be
Speaker 3: impounded or repossessed. Yeah, I think so. I think that's
Speaker 3: exactly where it will go. So I just hope people
Speaker 3: are thinking more deeply about these things that instead of
Speaker 3: just going well, yeah, I would love to have more
Speaker 3: tax deductions, that this would be a positive for me. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so what I I agree with you, However, uh not
Speaker 3: ideal when it comes to how you actually formulate a
Speaker 3: economy or a legal system or a tax system. Obviously
Speaker 3: the best tax system would be no tax system. Today's
Speaker 3: episode of liberty lockdowns once again brought to you by
Speaker 3: our friends over at Monetary Metals unlock a twelve percent
Speaker 3: return on silver? Are you ready to start building wealth
Speaker 3: by putting your precious metals to work? Silver isn't just
Speaker 3: a precious metal? It's a tangible asset and a great
Speaker 3: way to diversify any investment portfolio. And with monetary metals,
Speaker 3: you don't just own physical silver, you own silver that
Speaker 3: works for you to generate more silver, growing your total
Speaker 3: ounces over time. How cool is that? Right now, you
Speaker 3: can earn twelve percent annual interest on silver paid in
Speaker 3: silver in their latest offering if you're an accredited investor.
Speaker 3: Click the link in the description or head to monetary
Speaker 3: dash metals dot com slash lockdown to learn more. Monetary
Speaker 3: Metals is revolutionizing the way you invest in gold and silver.
Speaker 3: They've been paying interest in silver and gold for over
Speaker 3: eight years, helping you grow your wealth in real tangible assets. Finally,
Speaker 3: there's a true alternative to saving in dollars a yield
Speaker 3: on gold and silver with Monetary Metals. This is the
Speaker 3: first true silver bond since eighteen thirty four. You earn
Speaker 3: a twelve percent annual interest on silver paid in silver,
Speaker 3: but you must be an incredited investor to participate. It's
Speaker 3: a three year term and the bond is financing a
Speaker 3: publicly traded mining company located in the Western United States.
Speaker 3: Head to link in the description or go to Monetary
Speaker 3: Dash metals dot com slash lockdown for more information on
Speaker 3: how to participate. So I opened yesterday's episode with that
Speaker 3: FEMA zoom call just to show you that it wasn't
Speaker 3: a one off. Here is the commissioner for FEMA talking
Speaker 3: in front of Congress.
Speaker 11: We also know the more our workforce resembles the nation
Speaker 11: we serve, the better that we will serve it. We
Speaker 11: are adapting our recruiting efforts to reach individuals from underrepresented
Speaker 11: communities by partnering with his organizations like historically black colleges
Speaker 11: and universities and other minorities serving institutions.
Speaker 3: Just think about this, logically, does having a workforce that
Speaker 3: looks like me necessarily mean better service? No, it doesn't. Actually, like,
Speaker 3: there are lots of other ethnicities that can do a
Speaker 3: job really well that wouldn't look like me. Like if
Speaker 3: I go to a surgeon and he's got a thirty
Speaker 3: year track record with nobody that dies under his knife,
Speaker 3: do you care what his color is? The answer, if
Speaker 3: you're being is no, it shouldn't care at all. And
Speaker 3: if you have a guy who doesn't look like me,
Speaker 3: who's got a record like that, and then you have
Speaker 3: a guy that looks like me, who's had ten people
Speaker 3: in the past twelve months die on the operating table,
Speaker 3: and you go, well, thanks to Deanna chris Well, the
Speaker 3: FEMA coordinator, you have to get surgery from this guy.
Speaker 3: But he looks like you, so it's gonna be better. No,
Speaker 3: actually that's not true. So, like, I just wanted to
Speaker 3: give an analogy to because I think sometimes the platitudes
Speaker 3: of wokeness sound really good except for when you actually
Speaker 3: think about it for ten seconds and you go, oh,
Speaker 3: that's fucking stupid. Oh that's super fucking dumb. Actually that Oh,
Speaker 3: we're gonna we're gonna be hiring from HBCUs because that's
Speaker 3: going to make sure that we look more like the
Speaker 3: the communities that we're serving, and therefore the outcomes of
Speaker 3: our efforts will be better. There's no logic to that
Speaker 3: at all. None. Zero. Now, there are undoubtedly some great
Speaker 3: candidates from HBCUs that would do a fantastic job working
Speaker 3: for FEMA, though if they're actually that skilled, I'd rather
Speaker 3: than be in the free market not working for the state,
Speaker 3: because I'm sure they could do a lot better for
Speaker 3: that community. But man, this is the deiesg framework that
Speaker 3: I've been worrying about for years, say, stay on top
Speaker 3: of it. I know it can get exhausting to just
Speaker 3: hear about it all the time, and that's why I
Speaker 3: don't talk about it too often. But I just I
Speaker 3: want you to see examples of it, so when you
Speaker 3: see it in the wild, you could actually address it
Speaker 3: on your own and go, ah, I know exactly what
Speaker 3: this is. This is not a good thing. We need
Speaker 3: to push back against that, and hopefully it'll work. We'll see.
Speaker 3: Got an update from Rand Paul. He says that Fauci
Speaker 3: met with Ralph Barrick of UNC Chapel Hill in February
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty to discuss gain of function. He knew
Speaker 3: by January that Barrick and E Health Alliance we're doing
Speaker 3: risky COVID research at Wuhan Institut Virology with NIH funds, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, those funds are authorized by Anthony Fauci himself.
Speaker 3: That's me saying this is not Rand. But Rand continues.
Speaker 3: He says he lied to Congress we need real protection
Speaker 3: against the next pandemic, trying to pass my Bipartisan Risky
Speaker 3: Research Review Act. I haven't done many updates on the
Speaker 3: lockdown era for you guys, I thought that was an
Speaker 3: important one to be on your radar that in fact, yeah,
Speaker 3: Fauci undoubtedly did perjure himself. Big surprise. Will will the
Speaker 3: GOP actually do anything to hold him to account? Not
Speaker 3: holding my breath, but just wanted you guys to know
Speaker 3: that you're not crazy. That the things that we've been
Speaker 3: talking about for the past four years, yeah, we were right,
Speaker 3: and we've been lied to and abused terribly. But the
Speaker 3: good thing about having a large following on x is
Speaker 3: that because I posted that, I was then forwarded this
Speaker 3: by one of my followers, and he says February eleven,
Speaker 3: twenty twenty meeting between Fauci, Barrick, Auchinclaus, Alan Embrie, and
Speaker 3: others is detailed in section fifteen point four of my
Speaker 3: proximal origin article. Fauci and Barrick had a meeting in
Speaker 3: the presence of Fauci's right arm Auchinclaus, and of Alan
Speaker 3: Embrie of NIID, head of the Respiratory disease Branch, plus
Speaker 3: other representatives of both the extra mural and intramural programs
Speaker 3: of NIH. Description of the meeting was given by Barrick
Speaker 3: in his house interview Fauci was presented a present for
Speaker 3: only five to ten minutes, and the focus was on
Speaker 3: the regulatory compliance for the work done in the Barrick
Speaker 3: she zang Lee. That's the bat Lady chimera paper of
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen and more generally for that kind of research.
Speaker 3: That paper a SARS like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses
Speaker 3: shows potential for human emergence was the one that Fauci
Speaker 3: had asked Auchinclaus to review quickly before the Ferrar call.
Speaker 3: That's Jeremy Ferrar. It was also the paper that Anderson
Speaker 3: had noticed in the first one mentioned in the presentation
Speaker 3: that he prepared for the call. Do you recall specifically
Speaker 3: while he was there what she discussed. Ultimately, the goal
Speaker 3: of the meeting, to my recollection, was primarily focused on
Speaker 3: the twenty fifteen paper that we published in Nate Sure
Speaker 3: Medicine that basically, in my opinion, warned the world that
Speaker 3: there were viruses that existed in nature that could threaten
Speaker 3: human health. And so the first thing they wanted to
Speaker 3: do was talk about that paper, and then they wanted
Speaker 3: to talk about the regulatory the P three CEO regulatory
Speaker 3: compliance that was associated with that, So we talked about that,
Speaker 3: and then we talked about the specific experiments that were done,
Speaker 3: the first of which we compared the growth of this
Speaker 3: isolate to the parental virus that we introduced the spike
Speaker 3: gene into and it replicated the same. So from our
Speaker 3: perspective in terms of P three CEO, that's not called
Speaker 3: gain of function. That's called retention of function. Right, So
Speaker 3: that's kind of the whole context. That's kind of Enfauci
Speaker 3: left in the early stages of the discussion, right, because
Speaker 3: that took about twenty five to thirty minutes. I don't
Speaker 3: know how long it took, probably damn long. Probably, as
Speaker 3: Berrik alluded to in his interview, that meeting felt damn long.
Speaker 3: His gloomy feeling was also confirming the slack message from
Speaker 3: Matthew Friesman joked about his link to the Muhana student virology.
Speaker 3: He wasn't amused. Oh my god, So why do I
Speaker 3: bring all this up? Well, the reason I bring it
Speaker 3: up is because Athony Fauci, as the head of NIH,
Speaker 3: he had the capacity to authorize that funding for that research.
Speaker 3: He had authorized that funding for that research, and in
Speaker 3: February of twenty twenty long before we had a monstrous
Speaker 3: outbreak in America, long before the lockdowns, even over a
Speaker 3: month prior, he was having a meeting with Ralph Barrick,
Speaker 3: the guy who was responsible for working with the Bat
Speaker 3: Lady and ECOH Health on the gain of function research,
Speaker 3: which they know, they deny that it was gain of
Speaker 3: function research. Okay, fine, it's slightly different, but it's still
Speaker 3: basically gain of function research that was happening in the
Speaker 3: Will Hunters virology where the virus almost certainly came out of.
Speaker 3: So he lied the entire time when he was suppressing
Speaker 3: it in that Nature magazine. I'd have to go back
Speaker 3: through all the details to get all the exact details,
Speaker 3: but I'm sure you're reminiscing along with me and recalling
Speaker 3: a lot of this. So, yeah, Fauci lied from day one,
Speaker 3: and in fact, it is my opinion, and I think
Speaker 3: it's a well founded one that in fact, Fauci knew
Speaker 3: from way early on, maybe even maybe even at that meeting,
Speaker 3: maybe even prior, that this virus, this pandemic that we
Speaker 3: were dealing with, was a consequence of research which he
Speaker 3: had funded, and then he was tasked with ameliorating it,
Speaker 3: with fixing the situation that was created by the funding
Speaker 3: of the research that he had authorized himself. Do you
Speaker 3: not see a catastrophic conflict of interest in that, Well,
Speaker 3: the answer is yeah, almost certainly. That was well known
Speaker 3: and in fact, that's why he was tasked with the
Speaker 3: protocols for lockdowns and everything else, the pandemic response team.
Speaker 3: All of it is that fauci knew that his ass
Speaker 3: was on the line if the truth came out. Therefore,
Speaker 3: let's put this guy in charge of propagandizing the American
Speaker 3: people on how to handle it, to handle the pandemic
Speaker 3: and the lockdowns and everything else, because he will do
Speaker 3: a great job because he knows he is gonna get
Speaker 3: strung up if if the truth comes out. And now
Speaker 3: four years later, after everyone has had mental breakdowns over
Speaker 3: this lockdown era, I think most people are just too
Speaker 3: exhausted to even continue to push to get justice. I
Speaker 3: would encourage you to not be too exhausted to push
Speaker 3: for justice, and that includes Trump supporters out there, particularly
Speaker 3: if Trump gets back in RFK Junior is the guy
Speaker 3: that knows this better than I do by a large margin,
Speaker 3: that could actually seek justice in this arena. Am I
Speaker 3: deluded to believe that's a possibility. Yeah, probably, but it's
Speaker 3: our only hope of actually getting these people brought to justice.
Speaker 3: We'll see what happens. This is the Lawfair coordinator Norm
Speaker 3: Eisen in December twenty nineteen, asking the Trump impeachment witnesses
Speaker 3: if Trump should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors
Speaker 3: over Ukraine. And the second part of the clip is
Speaker 3: Norm Eisen admitting on November nineth, twenty twenty, so just
Speaker 3: a little bit less than a year later, that the
Speaker 3: impeachment was to pre bunk Joe Biden's corruption before the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty election.
Speaker 12: Amazing on the evidence they considered and the findings in
Speaker 12: the Intelligence Committee report that the president solicited the interference
Speaker 12: of a foreign government Ukraine in the twenty twenty US
Speaker 12: presidential election. Professor Feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable
Speaker 12: high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power? Based on
Speaker 12: that evidence and those findings?
Speaker 6: Based on that evidence, in those findings, the President did
Speaker 6: commit an impeachable abuse of office.
Speaker 12: Professor Carlin, same question, same answer, And Professor Gerhardt, did
Speaker 12: President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of
Speaker 12: abuse of power.
Speaker 3: We three are unanimous.
Speaker 4: Yes, all this horrible nonsense and still continuing with Hunter
Speaker 4: Biden and this fake dossier. There was no rule forbidding
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden from working for that company. There's no It's
Speaker 4: not against the law, it's not against the rules. Many
Speaker 4: many family, adult family members do that kind of thing,
Speaker 4: and we managed to, I think, draw this thing. I'm
Speaker 4: afraid we would have had a repetition of the October surprise,
Speaker 4: right down to the fake documents, if that had not
Speaker 4: been thoroughly ventilated. So that was not in a partisan way,
Speaker 4: but for the sake of our country. Impeachment was an
Speaker 4: inoculation against disinformation.
Speaker 3: Impeachment was an inoculation against disinformation. I like, I don't
Speaker 3: want to live in nineteen eighty four anymore. It's twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. Why are we living like as nineteen evel
Speaker 3: that was forty years ago. Stop, you know, I'm talking
Speaker 3: about the book obviously, but yeah, basically, what he's saying
Speaker 3: is the case against the Biden family. They knew that
Speaker 3: it was going to be a problem. But if you
Speaker 3: impeached Donald Trump over it before Biden got into the
Speaker 3: White House, well it would be a lot harder to
Speaker 3: bring a case against the Bidens. So that's what they did.
Speaker 3: They impeached Donald Trump over nonsense, as evidenced by the
Speaker 3: fact that in fact they could not convict him, and
Speaker 3: they did so to defend the future president of the
Speaker 3: United States and Joe Biden and Hunter and the whole regime.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, it's just so dirty. It's so dirty
Speaker 3: to do that, Like, it's so damaging to come from
Speaker 3: the people who talk about defending democracy, but you're literally
Speaker 3: using the democratic system, the process, the judiciary or in
Speaker 3: this case, Congress to try and impeach a political opponent
Speaker 3: just to try and basically whitewash a story that's damaging
Speaker 3: to guy on your side of the aisle. And you're
Speaker 3: the defenders of democracy. You sure you sure about that? Yeah?
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I don't think so at all. Actually,
Speaker 3: I think you guys are terrible human beings that have
Speaker 3: zero interesting democracy. And when you allegedly are fighting against disinformation,
Speaker 3: you're spreading disinformation and you're convincing half of the country
Speaker 3: to believe that Donald Trump was in the employ of
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin, which, by the way, were now in a
Speaker 3: proxy war because you guys lied about that there are
Speaker 3: actual consequences to your disinformation, which I just wanted to
Speaker 3: point out to constantly talk about the dangers of disinformation
Speaker 3: when it comes to what you and I say on
Speaker 3: the Internet. When's the last time you talked about them
Speaker 3: deep platforming. I don't know Anthony Fauci, for all of
Speaker 3: his missing disinformation, Ralph Barrick, Deborah Burks, none of them
Speaker 3: caused more damage your aunt on Facebook or Anthony fucking Fauci.
Speaker 3: Could the answer be more obvious? But no, it's not
Speaker 3: about truth. It's not about dis or misinformation. It's about
Speaker 3: narrative control, as you and I know clearly. Unfortunately, I
Speaker 3: think most people don't know that. I think most people
Speaker 3: go like, yeah, I see a lot of bs on
Speaker 3: the Internet. It'd be nice if I didn't see so
Speaker 3: much like misinformation. I agree with you, I would rather
Speaker 3: people like tell the truth. I get really frustrated. Actually,
Speaker 3: I'll see really viral stuff, and I'm like, if I
Speaker 3: was a less moral person, I feel really viral by
Speaker 3: just making stuff up, because I'll see these accounts that
Speaker 3: just have enormous followings and they're just lying through their teeth.
Speaker 3: They're taking out of context stuff they're doing whatever they
Speaker 3: can just to get clicks and shares and traction, and
Speaker 3: it's just one fraudulent and they know it and they
Speaker 3: don't care. But guess what, the upside of allowing that
Speaker 3: to continue is far greater than the downside of asking
Speaker 3: the state of all people to try and stop. It
Speaker 3: couldn't be more lopsided risk reward scenario. So just learn
Speaker 3: how to freaking see through clickbait nonsense. That's the only
Speaker 3: answer to this. I know everyone would like to have
Speaker 3: a state based you know, one size fit all bandage
Speaker 3: to remedy it. Nah. Not in this case. You're gonna
Speaker 3: actually have to learn how to suess out the truth.
Speaker 3: It's it's tough, but you can do it. I have faith.
Speaker 3: I was a huge fan of John Stuart and I
Speaker 3: will have undying appreciation for John Stewart for his coverage
Speaker 3: of Ron Paul being buried by the media in twenty
Speaker 3: eight or two thousand and eight, maybe it was twelve.
Speaker 3: I think it was a wait, and he continuously demonstrated
Speaker 3: that even though he was coming in first or second
Speaker 3: in every straw poll, that they were just skipping over him.
Speaker 3: They were just saying, like was like here who came
Speaker 3: in first, third, and fourth, And he'd be like, who
Speaker 3: came in second, and they would just black out Ron
Speaker 3: Poule's name. It wouldn't even be there. That was the
Speaker 3: John Stewart that earned my respect.
Speaker 1: Ron Paul dominating the names strawpol We got ourselves a race.
Speaker 3: We have a top tier. It is Mitt Romney, Rick Perry,
Speaker 3: and Michelle Bachman.
Speaker 13: We have a new top tier and it's Perry, Mitt
Speaker 13: Romney and Bachman. There's now a top tier in this race,
Speaker 13: at least for now, of Romney, Perry and Bob.
Speaker 14: I mean, I think that's fair to say, really fair
Speaker 14: to say you're not forgetting.
Speaker 1: I don't know anyone say an ideologically consistent twelve term
Speaker 1: congressman who came within less than two hundred.
Speaker 7: Votes of winning the straw Pole.
Speaker 14: Isn't anyone going to give that gentleman a little love?
Speaker 6: There's a top tier now of a Bachman and Perry
Speaker 6: and Romney. And you know we haven't mentioned, and we
Speaker 6: should thank you. We haven't mentioned, and we should. Rick Santorum,
Speaker 6: who did really surprisingly well for the amount of money
Speaker 6: and resources he.
Speaker 14: Had, said Torum, he didn't get half of what Ron
Speaker 14: Paul got he lost to the guy who lost so
Speaker 14: bad he dropped out of the race.
Speaker 3: Here's the issue, John, if you're going to defend Ron Paul,
Speaker 3: I think it would behoove you to listen to him
Speaker 3: when he talks about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,
Speaker 3: because it ain't a social contract that keeps us free.
Speaker 3: Contrary to your protestations, it is not just the words
Speaker 3: on the parchment. It is the actionable enforcement mechanism that
Speaker 3: supports that document that has made it as valuable as
Speaker 3: it has been for over two hundred years. And yes,
Speaker 3: sometimes the judicial system will step in to defend it.
Speaker 3: More often than not it seems that the judicial system
Speaker 3: is stepping into undermine it. But at its core, the
Speaker 3: reason that we remain free is not the words, but
Speaker 3: in act, the weapons. And that's an uncomfortable reality that
Speaker 3: I think that most Democrats don't like to acknowledge, which
Speaker 3: is fascinating because they are the first to acknowledge when
Speaker 3: it comes to war, when it comes to the police
Speaker 3: stopping crimes or whatever. Well, not all of them, but
Speaker 3: I'm talking about the the moderates, the John Stewarts of
Speaker 3: the world that they go, yeah, thank god, there was
Speaker 3: a good guy with a gun there, Well, guess what,
Speaker 3: you can be a good guy with a gun and
Speaker 3: not be in the employee of the state. In fact,
Speaker 3: I would argue that the vast majority of good guys
Speaker 3: with guns are those that don't work for the state
Speaker 3: at all. So you might want to think about that
Speaker 3: the next time you're going up on Capitol Hill to
Speaker 3: argue in favor of these hundreds of first responders that
Speaker 3: have died from cancer or whatever else they've suffered for
Speaker 3: the past twenty years, saying can these guys get their
Speaker 3: healthcare covered as they were working in the employee of
Speaker 3: the state when they were damaged so severely. If you
Speaker 3: can see the rationale in stepping up and using your
Speaker 3: voice to help those men, you ought to be able
Speaker 3: to understand why those men ought to be able to
Speaker 3: arm themselves. It's obvious. I know you can see the logic.
Speaker 3: And let me just say you'll never see this, but
Speaker 3: just let me say I would love to have you
Speaker 3: on the show and I would love to talk this through.
Speaker 3: So if you'd ever have any interest, mister Stewart, as
Speaker 3: a longtime fan of yours who finds your current the
Speaker 3: current iteration of your show to be lacking in the
Speaker 3: same brilliance that you once demonstrated. Well, you were welcome anytime.
Speaker 3: If you guys would like to see that tag him
Speaker 3: on social media. I'm just kidding. If you could hit
Speaker 3: the like button, subscribe, share it around. Got some good
Speaker 3: news for you. I have notified Luke, my co host
Speaker 3: over on the Best Political Show, that until Rumble actually
Speaker 3: signs me, I'm gonna only be doing one show of
Speaker 3: BPS per week That's Best Political Show, and I'm gonna
Speaker 3: be doing three to four or more episodes of Liberty
Speaker 3: Lockdown per week. I think that it makes the most sense. Like,
Speaker 3: I've totally been negligent in putting out content on this
Speaker 3: channel because I've dedicated so much of my life to
Speaker 3: the other one. So if you guys enjoy what I
Speaker 3: do here, please do share it around, subscribe, like, do
Speaker 3: whatever you can to help boost the signal, because I
Speaker 3: still don't get very favorable treatment from the algorithm, but
Speaker 3: I think I will start to get treated better if
Speaker 3: I do more content over here. I think doing one
Speaker 3: or two episodes per week just ain't enough, and I
Speaker 3: plan to deliver more. So I hope you enjoy it,
Speaker 3: and I am forever in your debt for the supports
Speaker 3: you guys have offered me over the past four years,
Speaker 3: and it's only gonna get better from here. If you'd
Speaker 3: like to support my work as always at Liberty lockpod
Speaker 3: on X, you can subscribe there and I'll follow you back.
Speaker 3: I love the support to people that are supporting my work.
Speaker 3: It's only five bucks a month. Easiest way to support
Speaker 3: me is to subscribe there again at liberty lockpod on
Speaker 3: X and I'll see you guys in a couple of days. Ready, peace,
Speaker 3: Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. P'scome your park hove to liberty
Speaker 3: ain't come, but yeah it's on whol Where did it
Speaker 3: come from? And where did it