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