Biden Domestic Terrorism Plan, Critical Race Theory Conspiracy? POPO: Maryland Taser, Georgia Firing

President Joe Biden unveils a blueprint for targeting Domestic Extremists, formerly known as American Citizens, in new 32-page report. Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe says critical race theory is a conspiracy and we review a lesson from the classroom. Maryland police tase a 17-year-old young man and Georgia fires 5 officers after man died by hanging in their custody.​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Biden Administration unveils blueprint to combat “domestic extremism” and releases a 32-page plan.​
🔵 President Biden ordered a review of the how federal agencies address domestic extremism after the events on January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol.​
🔵 Who are the Domestic Extremists? How will the government identify and address them?​
🔵 FBI has previously warned congress that Q-Anon conspiracy theorists may carry out more attacks.​
🔵 Review of the 32-page report entitled the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.​
🔵 Viral video shows cops tasing a teen who was vaping in Ocean City, Maryland on June 6th, 2021.​
🔵 Ben Crump tweets a second angle of the arrest showing officers throwing repeated knees into the young man’s back as the crowd gathers.​
🔵 Five Georgia officers fired after man dies by hanging while in police custody.​
🔵 Savannah Police Chief calls for police reform after the firings and placement of another officer on probation.​
🔵 William Zachary Harvey, aged 60, was found alone in the interview room when he was found hanged.​
🔵 Officers Cpl. Silver Leuschner and Sgt. Michael Kerr were immediately filed while Sgt. Christopher Hewett, Cpl. Erica Tremblay, and Officer David Curtis were terminated after sharing a meme of the hanging death.​
🔵 Virginia Democratic nominee for governor calls critical race theory a “right-wing conspiracy” and dismisses its impact in Virginia education.​
🔵 Clip from Dr. Samuel Richards’s teaching at Penn State University where he compares and contrasts a white student and a black student in front of the classroom.​
🔵 Former North Korea student and defectors slams Woke schools in the United States saying the students hate America.​
🔵 Representative Ken Buck (R-Co) introduced bill to ban federal funds from being used to support the 1619 project.​
🔵 Senator Tuberville (R-Al) joins the efforts to oppose the schools teaching 1619 project in classrooms.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch: https://ww

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with a hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here in with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about the Biden administration. We've been spending some time on them for a couple of days here, but we've got a new report that we have to sink our teeth into. We're talking about a 32 page plan that is addressing domestic extremism. We've been talking a lot about that here. We already have a criminal justice system that is well in effect that is resulting in a lot of justice problems throughout this country. And now what it sounds like is the Biden administration wants to sort of create this new bucket of domestic extremists. And they've got a 32 page report that we're going to go through today to see what that looks like, because it sort of makes me a little bit concerned. We already have a criminal justice system. We know what happened the last time we went after a terrorist, at least as it relates to civil liberties. And so now we're talking about bringing all of that war on terror garbage right back to our doorstep. So very curious and concerned about this. We're going to go through it. Then we're going to talk about what's happening with some Popo going on around the world. We've got to take a look at what's happening out of Maryland. There was a tasing that took place and a young 17 year old man was sorta tased in the stomach. This video went viral, several officers were around the scene. And so we want to go through that story. We also have an update out of Savannah, Georgia, because five different police officers were all fired. Very interesting story. There was a gentleman by the name of William Zachary Harvey, age 60 died in police custody. He actually died by hanging and some bad things happen with those police. So we're going to talk about what's going on there. And then lastly, to wrap up the program, we've got a little bit of an update on some critical race theory week conversation that we got to dive into because the Virginia democratic gubernatorial candidate goes by the name of Terry McCullough. If you've been following politics for some time, you probably heard this name, some, one of those guys who was sort of in the inner circle of the Hillary Clinton and the bill Clinton camp. And so he is running for governor out of Virginia and he came out and said that critical race theory was a conspiracy,

Speaker 2: 3:00

Which is par for the course

Speaker 1: 3:02

Because everything else that we've been talking about on this channel at one point or the other has been labeled a conspiracy theory at some point. So, uh, very, very fitting that Terry McAuliffe would now just lump critical race theory into that bucket as well. Kind of like anything that you disagree with just happens to be a conspiracy. Notice that little trend, but lo and behold, there is some progress that's being made in critical race theory. We've got a representative by the name of Ken buck from Colorado. Sounds like he's going to be joining Tommy Tuberville from Alabama

Speaker 2: 3:29

To try to prohibit federal funds for being used for the 16,

Speaker 1: 3:34

19 project and some other things. So we have a lot to get into, as you can tell, and if you want to be a part of the show, if you want to participate in it, you can do so. By going over to watching the watchers.locals.com, which is where we take questions from you, the audience, we are going to go through different sections here on the, in the show today. And at the end, we'll take questions, comments, feedback, criticism, anything else you want to sort of throw out there? We'll be taking your questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com. So I'd invite you to go check that out. There are also some, a bunch of other links down in below in the description below that we would encourage you to check out like our law firms, YouTube channel, my crypto YouTube channel. I'm on gum road. Now I've got some courses that are available for you, and I would encourage you to check all of that stuff out and continue to support the show. We very much appreciate it. All right. So let's get into the news of the day. Domestic extremism. This has been a talk topic we've been spending a lot of time on this channel talking about, and it is now back in the form of a blueprint because the Biden administration is going to be addressing this catastrophic problem is they're calling him. So we want to go through what is happening here. And the reason why I'm concerned about this a little bit is because we've talked about extremism before in this country. We've talked about terrorism before. And so we're going to see a lot of this same type of language that is all being sort of wrapped into this label of domestic extremism. And my concern here is that anytime you start to do this, what you're doing is you're sort of making it difficult to tease out the meatballs from the meat sauce a little bit. It's hard to, to pull them apart, because what we're saying is we have this one big bucket of domestic extremism. Now my concern is that anybody can fall into that bucket for anything that the government just deemed to be appropriate, which is certainly concerning. So what I want to do today is of course, I want to frame this out, right? I am a defense lawyer. I've got a lot of concerns about our current justice system and how we enforce criminal laws in this country as is I think largely the rest of the country also has concerns about this. Cause we just spent all of the summer of 2020 talking about George Floyd, the summer of unrest, all of the riots, Antifa BLM, the list goes on and on criminal justice in this country has been on the ropes for some time. I know I've been practicing here for a little bit. So it is something that is, in my opinion, is, is ripe for a lot of improvement, a lot of reform. And I think most of the country agrees with me. Now, if we start sort of layering on some additional criminal statutes, that might be problematic. If we're going to start category categorizing and creating new buckets of crimes for all these different permutations of whatever the government is, we're going to read through, defines domestic extremism to be. Now, we may be talking about a whole sort of separate statutory framework, a whole new area of law for domestic extremism. And I've got a lot of

Speaker 2: 6:12

Problems with that because our current justice system, isn't all that good,

Speaker 1: 6:15

Great. We've got some problems with it. Some of it works, some of it doesn't, but as we can tell from the country from sort of the political term molt that we have seen over this last year, there is some

Speaker 2: 6:24

For improvement. So I have concerns about slapping on a whole new framework of

Speaker 1: 6:31

Domestic extremism laws. That being said, I am not somebody who wants to live in a society where there's domestic extremism going on and whatever, whatever, you know, we agree upon that definition to be, which I think is going to be pretty far off from one another. We're going to start to hear from the government that if you are sort of, you know, anti-government like if you're a small government person, if you think that maybe we shouldn't just accept whatever our Lord bureaucrats tell us as at face value, if you sort of question what they're doing, does that put you into that bucket? Yes or no. Does that make you a domestic extremist? Well, I don't know. And so we're going to have to define what these are, because I'm going to guess just like our current laws, a lot of innocent people are going to be swept up in these things. It's a violation of civil liberties. It's a violation of our constitutional rights. And I got a big problem with it. That being said, I don't want to live in a world where there is domestic extremism, right? I don't want to be somebody who's walking down the street and have to worry about some sort of, you know, a bomb going off or some sort of, you know, shooting happening. We all want to live in a peaceful society, whether you're democratic or Republican. I think that most people agree on that.

Speaker 2: 7:34

We all want a peaceful non-violent work,

Speaker 1: 7:39

Both society. And so when we start talking about combating, you know, domestic extremism, I think it's okay to approach it by saying, well, let's see what their offer is. Are they going to give us some hard concrete data? Are they going to tell us why this is such a problem? Right? We hear a lot from our politicians about all the problems. We have a laundry list that we're going to go through here about everybody. That's responsible for the ills of society, because that's what politicians do. They just sort of identify problems. They get on stage and they make a big show about it. And then they start throwing money around to try to solve these things. So let's start from the basis here, the framework that nobody wants, domestic extremism, and maybe, maybe Biden's got something to offer us here for what they're going to be doing. So we're going to start there. We're going to go back to the New York times. This is published today, June 15th,

Speaker 2: 8:22

By Zolan Kano Youngs.

Speaker 1: 8:24

He says the Biden administration forms a blueprint to combat domestic extremism. We turn that on over here here. It says the Biden administration is aiming to bolster. What are we going to be talking about? Information sharing with technology companies expand the hiring of intelligence analysts and improve the screening of government employees for ties to domestic stream. Isn't right. So they're going to be checking their employees about this. According to the New York times, we've already seen this, they're doing this with the military. We saw, I think it was Lloyd Austin, the secretary of defense who was sort of hinting this way. This was stemming from January six, right? We talked about that here. That as soon once they went, once that happened, we knew that this was just going to be sort of opening the can of worms, going to be a lot of enforcement, a lot of criminal prosecutions taking place. And now they're going back and actually investigating their own government employees. We saw this during the inauguration, right? They thought that the national guard people may have been a bunch of Trumpers. So we got to make sure that they were all identified and theoretically ex-communicated so we know that's going on. Now

Speaker 2: 9:23

I ordered a review right there it is. Biden ordered a review of how,

Speaker 1: 9:31

What the heck is going on over here. All right, we got it together here. Folks Biden ordered a review of how federal agencies address domestic extremism. Soon after coming into office, part of an effort to more aggressively acknowledge that there was a threat. This is a 32 page

Speaker 2: 9:44

Plan that has steps that

Speaker 1: 9:46

Have been recommended. My national security officials. They're talking about bolstering relationships with who social media companies, so that they can just skim more your data off there and identify you as a threat for whatever reason, if Zuckerberg says so then you're, I guess you are improving information sharing amongst law enforcement agencies into one blueprint. Okay? So they're going to identify extremist in the country. Now this is according to the New York times. So we're going to dive into the article itself and we're going to see what this means. Who are they talking about? We keep hearing about extremists, right? I'm tired of this word. I've been hearing this for a long time. Domestic violent extremists. We even heard John Brennan, former CIA guy said that, you know, libertarians belong in that category, which I take offense to. So let's take a look here. Now if we were winding the clock a little bit. Okay. So this is from June 15th. We already went through this article. Let's look back here on March 17th. Okay. This is what they were saying, different, uh, author over here from the New York times, but this was also updated on June 15th. So the New York times says a new report warns of the rising threat of domestic terrorism. Okay. So now we're sort of seeing some modification of language. Domestic extremism now is the current version, but back on March 17th, there was a new report about domestic terrorism. So what are we talking about there?

Speaker 2: 10:54

Right? Are we talking about Al Qaeda? Are we

Speaker 1: 10:57

Talking about ISIS? Are we talking about foreign terrorists or are these domestic terrorists, right? Like the word here in front of terrorism says domestic. Okay. So domestic terrorism sort of morphing into domestic extremism because probably somebody didn't like the terrorism word. So Biden requested that the intelligence community complete an assessment shortly after taking office. He made fighting domestic terrorism a priority. And again, who are we talking about? He is specifically rents referencing here that the new intelligence report that was delivered to Congress, it's talking about militias and white supremacists. Okay. Adding urgency to a call for more resources sources. So I want to, I want to

Speaker 2: 11:35

Get into this, right? Who are these militias? Who are,

Speaker 1: 11:38

Are these white supremacists? Because we keep hearing these words a lot and they're all being passed around a little bit. I remember hearing that the white supremacists were the proud boys. Remember this and the proud boys hat were, were being led at the time by a guy named Enrique Tario who did not happen to be a white guy. So my question back then was how were the proud boys, white supremacists, if the leader of whatever chapter that was is not even a white person, it sounds like a pretty ineffective white supremacy organization. If they're electing as the president, somebody who is not white, right? It is, it is such an, an overgeneralization. And I don't like the date where this is going. I think it's quite dangerous when you just start calling everybody in anybody, a militia or white supremacist based on whatever your definition is that nobody knows, right? It's, it's a pretty powerful tool because it's an awful label to start throwing around. So haphazardly. So if they're going to use this definition, if they're going to say militia and white supremacists, well, I want to know what those mean. And I want to know what groups they're specifically talking about, because quite frankly, I've been labeled as, as a, as a Nazi or something like that by some lunatic website. Anyways, the point here is in particular, they're talking about the intelligence assessment highlighted the threat from malicious. Okay. So again, what malicious predicting that it would be elevated in the covenant coming months, again, that this is back in March. So if it's going to be elevated, intelligence community will tell us what's going on. They're talking about contentious social political factors, racially motivated, violent extremists, such as white supremacists were the most likely to conduct mass casualty attacks against civilians while malicious there, they're defining typically targeted law enforcement and government personnel. And right. And so this report back in March says over the next little bit here, we may be seeing a problem, right? It's a coming threat. They're saying elevated in the coming months is the language well in the coming month? Have we seen it right? March, April, may, June. We're in June now. I all right. So we haven't seen any mash mass casualties, the attacks. I mean, when I think mash casualty, I think, you know, a big number of people. The last time we talked about this story, right? People send me emails, Hey, this was, you know, three people were shot over here. Two people were shot over here. I understand that. Right. I, and I want to distinguish here between shootings, which should be covered between our regular criminal law and something that's more existential threat, something like a militia, okay. That we haven't seen before has a United States, government battled a militia, you know, outside of what maybe they claimed happened in Waco or what they're saying, you know, occurred in, you know, like how about the civil war, right. We were dealing with with that. Now there are militia groups that there are little, you know, spats with law enforcement. I th there, there are those stories, but I'm talking about domestic terrorism, right? I'm talking about something that is elevating to that level on the scale of terrorism, the way that we think about it, we're going to see in the report when we get to the Biden report, that they talk about the Oklahoma city bombing. Okay. To me, that man that is a mass casualty event, a shooting at a nightclub somewhere where the, you know, somebody drives by and, you know, shoot, somebody shoots off awful thing horrendous, but that resembles more of regular rather than some sort of white supremacy, you know, overarching militia that justifies the response of that, that preempts a 32 report from our justice department, battling a net Nash nationwide problem in a rising threat throughout the nation. So is that happening? Yes or no. Let's go back to the first article that is detailing. What is happening in this 32 page report? So the new strategy that the Biden administration is

Speaker 2: 15:06

Talking about was widely expected

Speaker 1: 15:09

To detail a position on whether the government should establish a domestic terrorism law. See, this is what I'm talking about. This is not just like, oh, we're going to, you know, sort of focus on making sure that we're doing our jobs. Well, it's not a little pep talk a little rally, Hey, go out there. Justice department and enact justice. No, they're talking about new laws, new bureaucracies that they're going to layer on top of all of us, and we're going to have to deal with it for the foreseeable future. So they're talking about. Well, what should we do? Should we establish a law that prosecutors can use to investigate and charge homegrown extremists

Speaker 2: 15:42

Instead of

Speaker 1: 15:43

Relying on the current criminal code, like assault, murder, hate crime charges, the strategy instead indicates that the administration is now focused on bolstering methods of combating extremism already being used

Speaker 2: 15:55

By the government. Okay. Despite

Speaker 1: 15:57

Mr. Biden calling for such a law during the presidential campaign. So we have a little bit of a conflict here, right? Biden was calling for something like that. But now the current justice department probably reviewed the constitution and said, yeah, that's not a, not a good idea there, sir. Can't do that. Well, there is increasing bipartisan support to equip prosecutors with more laws to crack down on extremists, civil rights advocates have expressed concern that new statutes will lead to government overreach and infringement on privacy rights. The administration referred the issue to the justice department for further review, according to the planning document. So they're going to continue to look that the justice department is going to do a deep inquiry, and they're going to determine just how far they can in fact overreach and how heavily they can infringe on your privacy rights. So I'm looking forward to see what that memo looks like. We also are gonna wrap up this article before we go back to the FBI and get their characterization, but they say other efforts to investigate extremism, including a commission to examine the TAC have been stymied by Republicans and pro-Trump mobs, the assessment being released on Tuesday list, the tasks that were peppered or perpetrated. We're going to read through those. We've got five police officer shootings in Dallas. We've got a shooting on the congressional baseball game. We have a C John Congress. These are all sort of the examples that they are giving for us, which so keep that in mind, right? Five officers shot in Dallas. I remember that one, the shooting at the congressional baseball game. I remember that one, we've got shootings at churches. We've got to see John Congress. So we have five officers shot in Dallas. I'm not sure how many died their baseball game was sort of, you know, they're, they, they frame that as that lone gunman, Bernie supporter, who went out there and I think shot one congressperson who didn't die. Then we had the siege on Congress, which, uh, one, one officer died by suicide. Another officer, uh, died presumably by natural causes. And the other three casualties were by, uh, or, or, you know, the people who were a part of the, the mob there. So, okay. But the strategy was also the latest in a series of assessments that, uh, by Mr. Biden, labeling white supremacist and militia groups, the most lethal threats among domestic terrorists extremists.

Speaker 2: 17:59

Okay. The danger

Speaker 1: 18:01

From such groups has not subsided according to this document. So I want to just pin this for us here. The strategy was also the latest in a series of assessments issued by Mr. Biden labeling all right. White supremacists and militia groups, the most, the most, most, most lethal threats among domestic extremists. Okay. So what we're going to do as we go through this is we're going to identify all these different extremists. We're going to read through this. I've already read through a lot of this. And so I've been sort of characterizing and putting the different extremist groups into different buckets, right? And we're going to, we're going to go through that here. But I, as we read through, I want to just sort of review how our different law enforcement agencies are categorizing these things so that we're sort of mirroring what they're doing. If we're going to be labeling these things, I want to make sure we're sort of matching their language. So back sometime ago on June, uh, not that long ago, June 14th, yesterday, uh, the FBI actually just released new information. They an unclassified, this FBI threat assessment that they passed over to Congress. It's now public. So we can read through this. We can see what the FBI was telling Congress about these domestic extremists, because of course, you know, the FBI now is being run by Christopher Ray and it's under the administration being housed by Biden. And so the FBI is sort of the chief law enforcement arm of the federal government. And we gotta be careful know, we got to see what they're doing. They're gonna be on the front lines, making these arrests, doing these investigations. So let's see what they're doing

Speaker 2: 19:24

Warning about over from CNN. This was posted yesterday. It says the FBI is warning lawmakers that cute.

Speaker 1: 19:31

The one on conspiracy theorist may become more violent Q Anon. All right. So I guess they're still around thought all that kind of got forgotten about when Trump is not president anymore, but I guess that's still going on. So now it says the FBI has warned lawmakers that online Q Anon conspiracy theories may carry out more acts of violence, right? May carry up serving as digital soldiers to take action in the world. Following January 6th,

Speaker 2: 19:55

The shift is being

Speaker 1: 19:56

Fueled by conspiracies, of course, more militant followers. They say they can no longer quote trust the plan that was being set forth by cue, according to an unclassified FBI threat assessment. This was sent out to lawmakers last week. CNN just got a report, got a copy of this. So this is actually kind of interesting. The FBI drove investigation, of course, unclassified document. This was sent out. It sounds like on June 4th,

Speaker 2: 20:19

The adherence to the

Speaker 1: 20:20

Q Anon conspiracy theory by some domestic violent extremists. We have another version of this. We've talked about this one a lot. This was the first version that the, the Biden administration came out with. They call them DVS, which is one that I've been sort of using, uh, in my, in my notes and in my thinking about it, domestic violent extremists. And I always thought this was clever because they're sort of piggybacking off of the domestic violence stuff, right? Everybody's already familiar with domestic violence. We already know what that is. And so you just on extreme as there, and you sort of take, uh, a persuasive term, right? Nobody likes domestic violence. We all know that, right. It's sort of what you see, you know, domestic violence is shelters and all sorts of stuff. So we're all familiar with that term. You just add on extremists and it already takes something that has a very negative connotation, rightfully so and makes it worse by talking about extremist. So the FBI is still using that term. Now the justice or the byte administration are now calling them domestic extremists, but we also had domestic terrorism. It's hard. That's one of the same folks. It's hard to keep track of all this. So let's see what's going on here. The information in this product is provided for informational purposes. Only according to the FBI,

Speaker 2: 21:23

Uh, generating, accessing,

Speaker 1: 21:26

Discussing, or otherwise interacting with Q Anon related content without engaging in violence is legal and protected by

Speaker 2: 21:32

The first amendment. FBI does not

Speaker 1: 21:34

Collect or do anything to, you know, monitor first amendment protected activities. Thank you. The part which you can take that with a grain of salt ASCA as Snowden and, uh, assigns what they think about that. The participation of some domestic violent extremists, these DBEs who are also self identified as Q and honors, they were participating in the siege on January 6th. It underscores how the current environment is likely and will continue to act as a catalyst for some to begin accepting the legitimacy of violent action, right? Q1 on, they say refers to a complex, constantly evolving conspiracy theory. That's being promoted through a decentralized group. They talk about Satan worshiping international child sex trafficking rings. They talk about plots engaged against the former president Trump. These alleged crimes by members of the cabal will allegedly be punished by their mass military detention in Guantanamo bay. Uh, Q Anon narratives are constantly expanding to include false information, things like 5g technology and some other stuff. Right. And

Speaker 2: 22:33

There's been, there's been no question that there's been some goofy stuff from, from, from

Speaker 1: 22:38

Some of the Q and honors. I've followed some of

Speaker 2: 22:40

It on Twitter. And, you know, even after a lot of our

Speaker 1: 22:44

Election coverage where we went through date by date, all of the rules in the constitution and all of the parliamentarian rules from the Senate and the opening of the electoral votes and all of that, you know, we sort of, we're still seeing a big contingent of people out there saying, yeah, but still, you know, something could happen. And I always thought

Speaker 2: 23:02

That that was a little bit out there, but yeah.

Speaker 1: 23:05

Does that make them extremists? Does that make them domestic extremists? Because they have a particular belief. There's a lot of people who believe a lot of wacky things, you know, a lot of people were believing that Dr. Fowchee was telling them the truth for a long time on this country. And we all know that that wasn't the case. So now it's sort of, people are free to believe whatever they want to believe if they want to believe in conspiracy theories, that the earth is flat, that you know, nobody ever went to the moon, that JFK is still alive. That Epstein didn't kill himself. Whatever the list goes on and on, you are free to believe that in this country. And you can believe it as hard as you want to that's okay. Now, so the question then it becomes,

Speaker 2: 23:37

You know, are, are, are they now police

Speaker 1: 23:40

Thoughts? Are they policing what's happening in your mind? Because they don't like your political ideology, that bucket of people that you seem to be hanging out with the FBI. Now they have arrested. They say more than 20 self identified, Q Anon adherence who participated in the January 6th, violent lawful entry of the Capitol. Right? So I would say they are going to piggyback on that January 16, for the next 20 years, these individuals were charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct. Right now they're talking about court documentation, public statements, social media posts, according to press reports based publicly on social media posts, a woman who was fatally shot talking about Ashley Babbitt here, according to the same press report, right? She may have been a Q and honor talking about nothing can stop us. They can try and try it for the store

Speaker 3: 24:25

Is here. Right? So she's posting stuff. And now she's being labeled to a Q and honor. Maybe she

Speaker 1: 24:30

Does. Maybe she, I don't, I don't, I don't know. I really,

Speaker 3: 24:34

I have a hard time understanding where the line in the sand is, how do they split you out on one side or the other? Let's take a look now. So, so candidly,

Speaker 1: 24:44

Right? There's a pretty easy way. We do that in criminal law, you actually have to do something, right. You don't typically get arrested for thought crimes. You hit, you have a mental state, a guilty mental,

Speaker 3: 24:53

And you got to do some sort of action, right? Like what have been

Speaker 1: 24:56

Happening here? Somebody believed in something and then they took

Speaker 3: 24:58

Action. So yeah,

Speaker 1: 25:00

We could prosecute them for trespass. We could prosecute them for whatever they're currently being prosecuted for. We've covered many of these cases. So we can do

Speaker 3: 25:07

All of that. Do we need new laws in place? Do we need a

Speaker 1: 25:11

New framework for dealing with these people? Or do we already have

Speaker 3: 25:13

One? Well, the vitamin,

Speaker 1: 25:16

Thanks. We need a new framework for it. Not necessarily new laws, but there are going to be, there's going to be a new approach. And we're going to get to that here in a minute. So what else on January 7th, FBI arrested a couple of other people firearms. They had hashtag Q Anon in there, right? And then talking about new world order, a cabal, a deep state, you know, all of that stuff. So again, right, this person was charged with making threats, allegedly bringing firearms and ammunition to DC. You're making threats against the speaker of the house. According to court documents, we've talked about these cases. We went through many of them here. We talked about the one gentlemen

Speaker 3: 25:45

Who was not even in the Capitol

Speaker 1: 25:48

Building, right, got into a fight the day after, but had traveled there and was sort of

Speaker 3: 25:54

Caught making, uh, you know, making statements

Speaker 1: 25:57

That were not great about certain political people.

Speaker 3: 25:59

And they said, well, based on that

Speaker 1: 26:02

Public threat, you were communicating that through text messages, across, across state lines. We're going to treat that as a real inactive threat, even though you weren't on the Capitol grounds on January 6th, we were there on January 7th and next night, we're still going to arrest you. And we're going to classify your arrest and your offense as being something that was very closely connected to the January six riots.

Speaker 3: 26:21

So it w how, how do you draw the line on that one? Well, I guess

Speaker 1: 26:27

You just follow whatever the government tells you. Then we also have on January 8th, federal law enforcement, they arrested in Oregon based DVE. Self-identified Q Anon adherence. Over here, we have, uh, DVS are US-based actors is their definition who conduct and threatened activities that are dangerous to human life in violation of the criminal laws. According to the FBI, right intended to intimidate coerce, a civilian population influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction or assassination or kidnapping as per the definition of domestic terrorism. So they're referencing us code. Now, what we're going to look at here is it's funny. They talk a lot in this article about Q Anon, but, you know, I, I wonder if any of this stuff applies to any other movements that are taking place in this country, right? If you talk about, uh, you know, affect the conduct of government by mass destruction, like, so for example, I remember that there was a summer of 2020, where there were different little, uh, chops, and Chaz's going on around the west coast of the United States, where you would have this group of people who would actually take over some geographic area within a city, the Capitol hill, autonomous zone, right. Or the Chaz, remember that. And then we saw that happening in other parts around the country. We also saw that in Portland, that they were throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal court building repeatedly, I think for several months on end in fact, and we saw that there was a burning down to the third precinct in Minneapolis during the aftermath of the George Floyd death. And the list goes on and on, we saw a Wendy's being torched. We saw all sorts of used car, lots being torched, which means that maybe some of those would be appropriate to classify as something like intimidating or core or coercing a civilian population, right? Maybe that might be that. Could it be to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, maybe affecting the conduct of the government by mass destruction, like throwing Molotov cocktails? You know, how about you could make the argument that, uh, you know, there was theoretically kidnapping. If people were locked inside of those chop chap or cha, uh, Chaz zones or whatever, right? It's something that is very obvious that we see regularly here, but they're not in this document. Are they, they're talking about Q Anon because it's more about politics than it is about in my opinion, security here is the last part of this FBI stuff. They're talking about the Oregon federal courthouse. Let's see what this is firing several rounds. So this person, so they are talking about the Portland or Oregon federal courthouse. Let's see what this is. So somebody who was ACU and on adherence was, uh, arrested on charges of destroying government property shot, edit court building two days prior, they located him a Q and on, and he says, yes, it's real. Right? So DVE, allegedly derail the train. Okay. That's a big problem. Derailing a train. So he wanted to just wake people up, right? Outlook. We assess that some DVE adherence of Q Anon will likely to begin to believe that they can no longer quote, trust the plan that is often referenced by the Q Anon posts, calling them digital soldiers, saying that they're being perceived as members of a cabal or identifying members of a cabal like the Democrats and the list goes on, right? Some interesting stuff in here. If you want to read it, they say adherence to Q Anon by some DBEs likely will be effector effected by factors like COVID and the level of societal polarization, social media companies, willingness hold their content, and the list goes on and on. Right? So this was prepared by the FBI and the U S department of Homeland security. So nice job gentlemen, going through there and identifying some of the real threats, uh, called Q Anon. So, okay. So now what I want to do is I want to go through the actual document. Now this was drafted by the national security council. Okay. Here's what it looks like. You can see down here stamped off on by the white house, national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. You see how the language changed a little bit, right? We see domestic terrorism here, and we see the New York times talking about domestic extremism, right? And you may think that I'm mincing words here, but I'm not. This is very important stuff. So the national strategy for countering domestic terrorism, okay, because with terrorists, we offer them sort of a lower standard of care in this country, right? We have Guantanamo bay. We say, now you don't get a lot of the same protections that we apply to. Other people, you are a terrorist, you are not a citizen being charged with a crime, like blowing up something or, or, you know, causing something to happen. You're being charged as a terrorist. And so we're gonna sort of, you know, start to strip away some of those constitutional protections that you might otherwise have, which leads me to be concerned about that because we're talking about domestic enforcement now, New York times says there's a 32 page plan that synthesizes the steps that have been recommended by national security officials into one blueprint on how to more effectively identify the extremist in the country. After years of a heightened focus on foreign terrorists, right. And the foreign terrorists, we really didn't know who they were, what they were doing. They were just sort of the bad guys, you know, they attacked us. And so we had to go attack them. And I am somebody who was, I was, I think, a sophomore in high school when, when nine 11 happened, you know, it's 2001. Yeah. It would have been a sophomore, I think. And you know, at that moment in time, I sort of didn't really sink a lot of time into this, into this national response strategy. Right. I think I was 16, 17 when you're, when you're a sophomore, but I did follow it along shortly thereafter and the aftermath, right. And the whole country was upset about this. And we were being sold a bill of goods that there was, you know, these weapons of mass destruction all over the place. And we were going to have to fly in there and sort out the business in the middle east and everybody was in favor of it. Right. Uh, you know, Hillary voted for it. I think Biden voted for everybody, voted for it. So we go off to war and we've been fighting this thing for almost 20 years now. And we've been constantly fighting these terrorists. And so, you know, we've had a lot of lives loss. We've had a lot of expenses that the country has paid and it still seems like it's kind of a mess over there, right? I'm not real sure what has changed personally, but you know, that is something that we've been fighting through for a long time, but there's always been this little hard to define concept of terrorism. You know, what are we doing over there? And you saw that people would say, oh no war for oil. And now this is America's interest. And we got to go over there and we got to, you know, hit the enemy back, fight them over there. So we don't have to fight them over here. Remember that for like a decade. And it's always been this really hard to define concept of terrorism. And what is the point of all this, you know, are we are focused on law enforcement and antiterrorism to protect America? Are we talking about saving lives? Are we talking about saving money or economic opportunities? I mean, why are we doing these things as a country? And I know that the, the politicians and the bureaucrats think they, they, they, they understand why they're doing these things, but I would like to see some data to support it. If they're going to be telling us that they're gonna be making these monumental shifts one direction or the other, I would like to see some justification for it, right? Why are we doing these things rather than just writing a bunch of paragraphs, like a bunch of word salad, where you're just dumping out your prospective plan. I would like to make sure that we have identified the problem appropriately, right? Anybody can go and you start doing a bunch of busy work and then come up and show you the work product after the fact and say, Hey, look what I built. And it might be a nice, beautiful thing you built, but if it doesn't fix the problem, if it's not applicable to our current issue, then I don't really, you know, that's, that's a nice thing you did, but it might as well be a painting. We just hang on the wall. It's not anything that's functional. And so we're going to see here a 32 page document that gives us a lot of solutions, a ton of solutions. And it gives us a lot of sort of broad problem analysis, right? It's sort of flushing out all of these different problems and let's see whether

Speaker 2: 33:50

Or not it actually

Speaker 1: 33:52

Means much of anything. So let's go into this article here. This is, this is not an article. It's a report, the national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. I want to go through the intro first because it's signed off on here by our boy, Joe Biden is cause see that down here in the, in the bottom, right? Joe R Biden Jr. Here he is says too often. Over the past years, American communities that felt wrenching pain of domestic terrorism. Okay. He's using that term there, black church members, the Charleston shooting. We have a synagogue targeted immigrants. We have a gunmen in El Paso targeting Latinos. And you know, those are, those are his conclusions. It goes against everything. Our country strives to stand in the world. It poses a direct challenge to America's national security, our democracy and our national unity. The strategy for countering domestic terrorism lays out a comprehensive approach while safeguarding American civil rights and civil liberties. We're going to see about that. Americans hold a wide array of beliefs. This is part of what makes America great. Blah-blah-blah specifically addressing violence and other factors that lead to violence that violates the law, threatening public safety. We cannot ignore this threat anymore, preventing domestic terrorism and reducing factors if you will. Okay. So working with all of our partners, this is a project that should, should unite. All Americans. We must affirm that domestic terrorism has no place in our society. Must root work to root out the hatreds, blah, blah, blah. Right? Nothing. He's not saying much there. Other than that, we're identifying this as a problem. And I would, I think that most Americans would agree that nobody wants the mastic terrorism to happen here. Let's see what his proposal is. This is what the table of contents looks like. So we've got

Speaker 2: 35:22

Introduction. We've got today's threats. This is

Speaker 1: 35:26

Is where we should be identifying what the problem is. Clearly we also have our approach. So what is the byte administration going to do? They're going to do it by going through their strategic pillars. And then they're going to give us a conclusion about the way ahead. All right. So

Speaker 3: 35:38

We've got a lot

Speaker 1: 35:38

To go through here and I'm not going to spend time reading 32 pages here, but I do want to go through and show you something that I was sort of working on to structure how I was thinking about this,

Speaker 3: 35:47

This concern or this problem, right? What we have

Speaker 1: 35:49

Been seeing from the byte administration is that there

Speaker 3: 35:52

Talking very frequently about all of these

Speaker 1: 35:55

Different domestic problems. And they have identified a lot of different buckets to put the people in that they've got a lot of problems with. We've got white supremacists. We just talked about the Q and honors. We already heard about the militias, right? So we're starting to sort of categorize these different people and what I've been trying to wrap my head around it.

Speaker 3: 36:11

How do you prioritize where you start? It's American.

Speaker 1: 36:15

It has a lot of problems right now. Okay. We hear this all the time. We've got climate change. We've got inflation. We talked about here, we've got poverty, economic issues. We've got the border crisis or non-crisis that camo is going to be trying to solve. We've got educational problems. The list goes on,

Speaker 3: 36:29

Right? So how do we start

Speaker 1: 36:31

Prioritizing these things? Many people would say the criminal justice is at the top of the list. We just went through a whole summer of a lot of problems in this country. Many people say that this is still going on. So we've got a lot of things that we got to work through in this,

Speaker 3: 36:43

The country, Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 36:46

And my Orca is from the department of Homeland security, John Brennan. And the list goes on, have all been saying for a long time, it's domestic, violent extremism. Now domestic terrorism that is at the top

Speaker 3: 36:56

The list. So as I read through this document today, I started to keep

Speaker 1: 37:02

The list of all of the different buckets of people that they're identifying as problematic. Let's put them on a spreadsheet. Let me show you what this looks like here. Right? This is something I put together this afternoon.

Speaker 3: 37:12

When I read through this, this is everything that I saw could potentially be labeled

Speaker 1: 37:18

An extremist. We've got the white supremacist. Okay. We already talked about them.

Speaker 3: 37:22

A big, big, big, big, broad bucket.

Speaker 1: 37:24

I really don't know specifically, if that is mentioning any groups, we're going to see. We've got the Q and honors K talks about them. FBI is very concerned. We got malicious. We've got the malicious here. We've got race-based shootings. Okay. We have general shooting. So we got, we got the racial shootings. Then we have the general shootings. We have violence against women. We've got violence against the LGBTQ. We've got anti-government people. Okay. We've got involuntary. Celibates is what they mentioned in the report. We've got involuntary celibates now, uh, in cells is something that they're mentioning. We've got anti-abortionists. We have animal rights, activists that they mentioned in there. They also mentioned that you believe it or not environmental rights or environmental justice people. We have the antisemitic attacks. We have anti-Asian attacks. We have the COVID deniers. And then of course we have the Trumpers. Okay? So it's a big list of people. These are all, and this is not exhaustive. This is all that I could fit on one slide. But you can see here. This is a lot of people that we have to work on.

Speaker 3: 38:17

So the question is as a government, right? Shouldn't we be prioritizing different groups

Speaker 1: 38:24

Rather than lumping all of these people into one bucket. Cause it sounds like we've got a lot of different issues here. We've got somebody, you know, this group is mad about abortions. This group's mad about animal rights. Uh, the Q and honors, or believe in a conspiracy, the white supremacist apparently are just, you know, a bunch of, uh, white supremacists. We've got anti-government people. I don't know that we would, all of them would fit into the same bucket, but they're kind of throwing them in there. Then we've got anti-Asian attacks, right? Those are different than antisemitic attacks and the list goes on and on. So we've got a lot of work to do the way that I started to just sort of think about this, right? Which one of these, if we're going to be focusing on how to prioritize our, our efforts, we should be identifying where the bigger, the biggest problems are. Should we not, which one of these groups is responsible for the biggest loss of life in this country?

Speaker 3: 39:08

I don't know the answer to that, but

Speaker 1: 39:10

Curious to know if we have any answers on that, right? We hear a lot that the white supremacists are very, very dangerous, very responsible for all of this. We're going to see in this report, they talk a lot about them. So I would like to know what these numbers are, how many people are the white supremacists responsible for killing or, or, you know,

Speaker 3: 39:26

Eliminating every year. Right.

Speaker 1: 39:28

And how much money does that cost the country and what is the economic impact of that? And how big is this group? So we can start addressing it. Okay. So that we can begin identifying where they are and how we start to respond to this. I'm just thinking about this, practically, not as a lawyer, not as anybody that has a lot of experience solving these issues on a global macro scale. But generally when you want to identify what the problems are, make a list of the problems. Right? We do this in. So my law firm, if I had got a list of issues, I need to work there. I say, I got these things. I got to do them in my day. And this one has priority. Why urgency or revenue, or I have personnel support that I need to come, help me solve this problem. And so you start to identify the different factors and then you rank them and you start knocking them out. So when we're talking about all of these extremist groups, I mean, wouldn't it be good to know maybe about their geographic location? Are they all in one location? Are they all people of a particular religion or a particular income or a particular profession? Do they have the same age, similar age, similar gender, similar ethnicities. Okay. We're talking about a lot of different factors here. And so I want to start understanding this. If, if our government is telling us, this is the biggest problem in the world for America, the biggest domestic issue that we have, and we're going to be, you know, sinking a ton of resources into solving this. How specifically let's see what the plan has to say before we get there though. You notice that big list. We talked a lot about, there's a lot of different extremist buckets on there, you know, who is really kind of not in there surprisingly well, any, any of these searches. So when I did a control F and tried to find a Antifa, I didn't find anything there, right? Zero results in this, in this list. So we've got all of these people, all of these people might be dangerous, but we don't have a Antifa. If you search the document search for BLM, don't see that anywhere. Right? So obviously they're not considering that to be one of those groups. Black lives doesn't show up once. So it's not just the, uh, the acronym. If you start to search for anti-fashion, anything like that. Nope. Not going to pop up. Right. And TIF is not in there critical race theory, which may be something that might be contributing to some of the racial animosity in the country, right. The list goes on and on. So they're just sort of selecting a certain group of people that they are are, are already labeling as domestic terrorism, just by some of the other groups. They're just not in this document unless I see the control F wrong, but I think I got it. It is. It's not in there. So the same people that we've been seeing, uh, actually, you know, throwing Molotov cocktails at court buildings actually burning down the third precinct, actually killing people on a regular basis throughout this country that have been seizing land. They're not in this list. So those people are not domestic terrorists by, by my first glance at this. Now let's take a look at the introduction. Okay? So this is what the document is telling us. It says domestic terrorism is not a new threat tapping over centuries. After the civil war, we had the KKK black Americans clan. We have killing a 23 people at a retail store in El Paso. We got the Charlottesville incident. We got the garlic festival. We've got Victoria, Texas. We've got, uh, Asian-Americans, we've got the surgeon anti-Semitism so you see what's happening. We just identified a bunch of those, a bunch of people on that list, the white supremacists, we've got the, uh, racial shooting in El Paso. We're starting to see what's going on here. Domestic terrorist is also happened 1995. We had the Oklahoma city bombing 168 people, which absolutely sounds like domestic terrorism to me. Okay. When I think of domestic terrorism, that's what I'm talking about. We have a lone gunman, wounded people at baseball practice. And just months ago we had January six. Okay. Today's threat. Now we have domestic terrorism. It's a serious and evolving threat, says the white house provision of federal law defines it as activities that involves, uh, acts that are dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws that are intended to intimidate. We already read that in the last FBI document, right? So I would, I would go ahead and venture to say, I would sort of walk out on that limb and say that I think that some of the BLM activities and some of the Antifa activities absolutely fall into that category over time, domestic terrorism in the U S they've ebb and flow, but today's domestic terrorist threat as assessed. Comprehensively is a mix of elements. According to this assessment, one key aspect emerges from domestic terrorism is it's from racial and ethnically motivated, violent extremists and networks whose racial, ethnic, and religious hatred leads them towards violence. Okay. So I would like to know a little bit more about that group, right? One key aspect. We're learning a little bit more about them. Now, these actors, they have different motivations, but they focus towards the same segment or segment of the community. Okay. So, well, that's kind of difficult to, to segment that out then, right? We're sort of trying to pull people out of the bucket and, and examine the problem a little bit. This person has this interest. This person has this interest and they're saying, well, they all have different motivations, but they're focusing on many, same segments, like immigrants, Jews, Muslims, religious minorities, women, and girls, LGBTQ I and others they're insistent on violence can be at times explicit. So what this document telling me is that, no, we can't actually separate them out. Okay. We can't do that. They have different motivations, but they focus their violence towards people of color, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, and other religious minorities, women, and girls, and so on.

Speaker 3: 44:44

Okay. So maybe

Speaker 1: 44:46

We can't, we can't do what I wanted to do and start to separate this out. Another key component of the threat comes from anti-government. Oh. Or anti-authority violent extremists. So I think I'm in the clear, because I'm not violent.

Speaker 3: 44:59

I'm

Speaker 1: 44:59

Not violent. YouTube. You hear

Speaker 3: 45:01

Me. All right.

Speaker 1: 45:04

Another key component of the threat comes from anti-government people. This significant component of today's threat includes self-proclaimed malicious. What the hell is a militia let's find out and militia, violent extremists who take steps to violently Regus, resist government authority, or who facilitates overthrow the government based on perceived overreach. We have anarchistic. They violently oppose all oppose all forms of capitalism. Is that true? They a corporate, is that true about anarchists? All right. Well, they got sovereign citizens who are, they're not happy about. They believe they're immune from the government authority, individual or groups who engage in violence, incite violence. We've got other domestic extremists look at this little quote here, right in the middle domestic terrorists have often been lone actors or small groups of informally aligned individuals. Don't you like that?

Speaker 3: 45:56

Small groups and their loan actors, which means

Speaker 1: 46:00

What I was trying to do is sort of, you know, sort of tease these people out and identify them so that we could get a clear eye on what the government intends to do, because they're going to be starting to prosecute these cases. But they're telling us, oh no, we can't. They're they're they're lone actors.

Speaker 3: 46:14

So we just, what

Speaker 1: 46:16

Does that mean? That means that they can't focus on any particular group. So what does that mean? Practically speaking, they gotta focus on everything, everybody. Right? That's what we talk about with these dragnets. That's what they're talking about with working with social media companies that we read at the start of the show. They're talking about gobbling up more information, more data, information sharing at your expense because they have, they can't identify these different groups. They can't go out according to this document and find individual people who are part of a bigger group. They're saying specifically, no, they're lone wolves. They are small groups. They're informal

Speaker 3: 46:49

Really aligned. So how do you enforce against that?

Speaker 1: 46:54

It's the same way that they enforce against terrorism. It's the same strategies. And we've already seen this from other security officials here on the show. We've talked about it, talking about using some of the same strategies and tactics that they used overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq right here. Now they're all saying, oh no, but we're going to protect your constitutional rights. We're not going to step on your civil liberties when we do this, has that happened historically, do we trust our government to sit there and tell us that they're not going to step all over our faces? I don't. Okay. Because we have a historical record of this didn't happen when the last time we went after terrorism and it hasn't happening in this country for some time as been revealed by Snowden and others. All right. Domestic terrorists have in recent years, they've been lone actors or small groups. These individuals consume material deliberately disseminated to recruit individuals. So now we're going to be focused on stopping recruitment. That's going to be one of the pillars we talk about. The ideologies can be fluid, evolving, and overlapping. It's hard to dissect them. And in some instances they can connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation. The often solitary and at times rapid nature of the mobilization poses, a particularly acute challenge to law enforcement and others seeking to prevent disrupts and deter domestic extremism, right? It's a big, it's a, it's a hard thing for them to do, which is why they need a lot of power to do it. They need a lot. They need a lot of material, a lot of money, a lot of resources, and they need you to just understand a little bit how complicated this is. And so they, you know, they, they appreciate that while they're going to continue to investigate you. These elements, they say combine to form a complex and shifting domestic terrorism threat landscape creates significant challenges, especially on internet based communications platforms like social media sites end to end encrypted platforms, not happy about those. All of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety. This is domestic violence, terrorism that America faces today. The distinctive imprint of the digital age, tackling this threat comprehensively and persistently demands appreciating its historical lineage and it's distinctively modern form. All right. So, uh, we've got, we've got a lot more to get through on this. So we're going to pick up the pace a little bit, but you can see what's happening here. There's sort into the first of all, there's not much actually happening. Let's see if we can piece together where they're saying this is such a concern. All right, there it is. My, uh, my, when I, when I, when I broadcast from the studio, my switcher is a little bit different. So my fingers press the wrong buttons. Cause I have a different switcher. Anyways, here it is. So assessment of the domestic violent extremism threat March, 2021. So what I've been concerned about here is what we've been reading about is sort of a lot of generalization of the problem, right? We hear a lot about this violent extremists, white supremacy. We hear some of the, I would say the, the historical examples that they will call to be domestic extremism or domestic terrorism. And I understand that, but my question is what are they going to be focused on practically moving forward? Right? W we, and I understand they're telling us militias, and I understand they're telling us white supremacy, but specifically I'd like a little bit more specifics about what that means and where this entire shift comes from. So it comes from this report March, 2021, the intelligence community, the IC, it says that domestic violent extremists are motivated by a range of ideologies, galvanized by recent events and, uh, pose an elevated threat in 2021, they've got biases against minorities,

Speaker 3: 50:19

Escalations they've got perceived government overreach. They will certainly get,

Speaker 1: 50:24

Continue to drive radicalization and mobilization, newer political developments, such as narratives of fraud and the recent election in bolding impact of the violent breach of the Capitol conditions related to COVID-19 and conspiracy theories, promoting violence will almost certainly spur some DVDs to try to engage in violence this year.

Speaker 3: 50:40

So I'm

Speaker 1: 50:41

Just, we're not going to get any specifics. We're just not, it's just going to,

Speaker 3: 50:44

To be broad strokes throughout the rest of this document, our approach, they say addressing

Speaker 1: 50:50

Terrorism effectively, responsibly requires requires moving swiftly. We're going to forge

Speaker 3: 50:56

Government wide effort while safeguarding law enforcement prerogatives in

Speaker 1: 51:02

Investigatory prosecutorial decisions. They're talking about, we're going to build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the government, but also to critical partners. So they're going to be working with state local territorial governments, civil society, technology, academia, and more domestic terrorism. And the factors that contribute to it pose a challenge best tackled by interlocking.

Speaker 3: 51:25

Here's our goal. Number one, understand

Speaker 1: 51:28

And share information. So they want to strategically number one, 1.1, enhanced domestic terrorism related to research and analysis. Any threat requires understanding it thoroughly. Yeah. Beyond just using broad strokes, like white supremacists. What does that mean? So they're going to do some analysis on that. So that's great. Maybe they'll tell us what this all means when

Speaker 3: 51:48

They do their analysis. 1.2,

Speaker 1: 51:50

They want to improve information sharing, which I've been hearing about for the last, I don't know, 20 years, right? Wasn't that the

Speaker 3: 51:57

Problem after nine 11, nobody was talking to each other. This is a huge

Speaker 1: 52:02

Problem. I was listening to a podcast on this by, uh, by biology. Sreenivasan most interesting man in the world right now, literally. And he was talking about rebuilding all of our supply chains for

Speaker 3: 52:12

Information because they're broken, they're

Speaker 1: 52:14

Garbage. We've been talking about inter governmental communication, as long as I've been alive. And many people were blaming the nine 11 attack, which was actual terrorism

Speaker 3: 52:24

On a lack of knowledge, FBI, wasn't communicating with the CIA.

Speaker 1: 52:29

They didn't have DHS back then, but you get the picture. So we're still focused on that twenty-something years later now, improve information sharing got that 1.3 illuminates the transnational aspects of domestic terrorism. So now they're going to be saying that if it's domestic, it's also being funded outside of the country, right? So some domestic violent extremists have sought ties and connections to people overseas, pillar, number two, they want to prevent domestic terrorism, recruitment, and mobilization

Speaker 3: 52:58

The violence. So how are they going to do that for those who break the law, they want

Speaker 1: 53:03

Reducing the supply and demand of recruitment materials. Okay? So this means censorship, isn't it. They want to get on the internet and make sure that you're not spreading this stuff around. So we're going to see more partnerships with their tech partners. And we're going to see some more limitations on that. Certainly a 2.2, we've got address online terrorist, recruitment and mobilization. So we'll see more of this. They're very unhappy with lot of the stuff that's taking place in the crypto space, very unhappy with this end-to-end encrypted chat platforms, not happy about that. They do not like the concept of decentralization. We're seeing that very regularly check out the crypto channel. If you're interested in any of that, we've got pillar number three, disrupt ended and deter domestic terrorism activity. So we've got enable appropriate enhanced investigation. Oh, I wonder what that means. Remember those enhanced interrogation techniques that George Bush was cramming through back then, all of the liberals were having conniption fits over that. I remember that specifically member waterboarding, how long we got beat up over that everybody was killing each other over the waterboarding stuff. Well, now it was. And George Bush, back then he said, let's not torture. Okay. This is enhanced interrogation. Pretty clever bite administration has taken one out of that playbook. They want enhanced investigation and prosecution now. So that's going to be good. Has they? Uh, the FBI, they say has been central to the U S government. They make their investigations. They investigate all sorts of forms of terrorism. We've got it right with, they already do all of this. They already investigate terrorism, including domestic terrorism. So I'm not sure what enhanced investigation they need, but they want to assess potential legislative reform. So pass some more laws, crammed, some more garbage down our throats. Cause we don't have enough of those 3.3 ensure that the screening and vetting processes consider a full range of terrorism threats, unless it's going to be black lives matter, which is not in here. And unless it's going to be Antifa, those are approved domestic terrorism folks. You gotta be, you gotta be careful. You know, if you're gonna, if you want to be involved in domestic terrorists, made sure it's a pre-approved by the Biden administration. Otherwise you could get in trouble. Now we have pillar four confront longterm contributors to domestic terrorism. It can take many forms. As we know, they don't even know. I mean, look, we've got racial, ethnic, religious hatred, dehumanizing portions of the American community. I see that all the time. I would like to see that stop. I can't stand the dehumanization of people tackling the longterm contributors. This means tackling racism in America. So Joe Biden is going to solve racism in America. That's good. Protecting Americans from gun violence and the list goes on. So how are we going to move ahead? The way forward, the way ahead they say, we've done this before. We've got the Oklahoma city bombing again, LGBTQ plus again, we've got this document represents strategy, a strategy whose implementation is already well underway. We're going to be steered. If we forge a community across everywhere, we're going to be stronger together. They all say so equality for all. Isn't that nice. Okay. Well, let's take a look@somequestionsoverfromwatchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We've got Joe. Snow is in the house. What's up. Joe says domestic terrorists to a Democrat administration just means a Patriot. Yeah. Certain, certain of them right there. There's a whole bucket of domestic terrorists. They're not

Speaker 3: 56:24

Happy with, but some, they just don't really blink an eye on it.

Speaker 1: 56:27

We've got Joe Snow says, I don't think Putin would prefer Trump to buy and because,

Speaker 3: 56:31

And we'll make Russia a pipeline, a lot of money yet. I find that interesting.

Speaker 1: 56:36

He's now done more for justice for Ashley Babbitt than any other GOP Congressman

Speaker 3: 56:40

And or Senator, I think. Um, are you referencing that Biden has done more for Ashley Babbett arguably, I mean maybe right by sort of not doing much. A lot of people are, are, uh, up in arms over that case. We've got Watson O says, huh? We've got, want to know, says

Speaker 1: 57:04

Portland mayor wanting Antifa unmasked and arrested finally tired of businesses getting destroyed using the FBI for help receive death threats from Antifa FBI and police task force said, this is domestic terrorism. Yeah. Yeah. The Portland mayor kind of changed his tune a little bit, a couple of times. Right? Very, very pro protestors. Nope. And he wanted to go out and hang out with them. I think we played that video on this

Speaker 3: 57:26

Channel. It could be wrong, but

Speaker 1: 57:28

I remember Wheeler wanted to go out there and hang out with the protesters and they started like throw him out. Didn't work out well for him. Sharon Quinney is in the house. Sharon says, you say that nobody wants domestic extremism, but I really questioned that we see looting killing arson, mayhem, condoned, and even applauded, or at least exonerated as peaceful protests last year and going forward, if all that isn't violent, domestic extremism. I don't know what is, it's a good point, Sharon. Yeah, it's a really good point. Right? I guess I don't want it.

Speaker 3: 57:56

Uh, period. I think that maybe if I had to modify my, my position, it would say it would be that, you know, this stuff is bad. Let me,

Speaker 1: 58:05

Let me characterize their position. As I understand it, domestic violent extremism is bad unless it's for a positive

Speaker 3: 58:13

Ideology. Okay. And then

Speaker 1: 58:14

I'm not out of bounds on this one because we saw the same thing happen with COVID lock downs are good and social distancing is mandatory and you're killing grandma unless you do that. Unless it's for a BLM protest, because we saw that we saw actual scientists and doctors say things like, well, health is a bigger issue than, than just your physical body. Okay. There's racism that exists in the medical profession. And so people need to speak out and we have to think about medicine holistically. And so we have to exonerate racism from the medical community as well. Therefore, the virus is not as lethal if you're protesting racial injustice.

Speaker 3: 58:49

All right, next up, we've got, uh, we've got LT. 13 says

Speaker 1: 58:53

I posted Darren BDS article that the non-indictment people found in the other people's indictment paperwork from one six, where the more violent looks to be the FBI or informants. They are now white supremacist and Patriot extremists. Also the Michigan FBI leader that had people embedded in the Whitmer thing is now in DC in charge of one sec.

Speaker 3: 59:10

Wow. I have no doubt about any of that. So, you know, I, I think that

Speaker 1: 59:15

This is a very, very political prosecution. I think I've been pretty consistent about that.

Speaker 3: 59:19

I think that, you know, going to, we're going to start

Speaker 1: 59:22

To see some, some resolutions here soon. We saw one of them. I think I can't remember what that one was, but uh, I want to compare and contrast these things. I want to know whether the Capitol hill protests, whether those people who are being charged and indicted and, and, and, you know, sort of dragged through the ringer in that justice system in DC, if they're going to be getting the same deals that all of the Antifa people got in other parts of the country, because we talked about their outcomes here, right? And I've said this historically, I really don't necessarily care what political side of the aisle you're on. I think that as long as you're not being politically prosecuted by the justice system, I'm okay with that either way. I don't want to see it against the Trump people. I don't want to see it against the Antifa or the BLM people. If, if they're doing something that warrants prosecution, they should get prosecution just like the Trump people should. And I've been consistent about that. But I also say that I don't think the people should have the books thrown at them in the criminal law either way. Right. It's charged it as a regular trespass case. If it was a regular trespass case, if somebody is throwing a Molotov cocktail to burn a building down, right, you escalate that up a little bit. So you just have to sort of look at it on a fact by, uh, on a, on a case by case basis. And I've been trying to do that with the Capitol hill protestors and what has been happening to them in my opinion has been grossly out of the norm that we see elsewhere in criminal law. We see the government somehow can't prosecute their cases. They've been, you know, they've, they've got three, 400 cases and they, they needed like 60 day continuances because they couldn't handle an increased workload. Give me a break folks. Any city that has a super bowl or a big sporting event is going to see a bubble of criminality happens all the time, all over the world. Many, many times happens in Arizona. Every time we get the super bowl or there's a, uh, you know, the Phoenix open waste management open, get big bubbles of crime. And we got to deal with it. Now, the Washington people out there, apparently they are too incompetent to handle an extra 300 cases. So they asked for a bunch of continuances. Meanwhile, they were opposing any of the release conditions that the defendants were requesting. They wanted them to sit in custody. Then the government was asking for continuances and when they did, so the one case, I think chancellor's lawyer didn't even object to. It said, okay, no problem. Yeah. We'll just sit in custody for another 60 days. The whole thing is a political prosecution top to bottom. And it's very offensive for somebody who believes in justice and the presumption of innocence and that all defendants across the board should be treated equally, not overly be admonished because of their political ideology. It's a huge problem. I don't like how this is trending in this country. Angie says, so before whoever questioned the narrative were labeled as conspiracy theorists, now it's going to be domestic terrorists, right? PS love the crypto channel. I got to get some more content up on that one. The last one I posted was about that pipeline. I'm going to start sinking some time into it last week on crypto, I sort of had to do a hiatus because we did law enforcement interaction training, which was a ton of fun. And I came up with the two, three rule, but I'm going to call it the one, two, three

Speaker 3: 1:02:20

Rule. And I actually, yeah,

Speaker 1: 1:02:22

Well, we'll, we'll unveil that later. So go check that out at my Gumroad down there and check out the crypto channel to love ya. We've got Todd trout in the house says so before whoever questioned, oh no, we already got that one. Todd's here. It says what determines a domestic extremist does Antifa qualify or is it just an idea? It's a good point there. Todd, maybe that's why it's not in the report.

Speaker 3: 1:02:42

Cause it's just an idea. And we only talk

Speaker 1: 1:02:44

About the extremist. I don't know. I mean, I still don't really know what an extremist is. This is one of those terms that is so it's so great. There's a lot of gray area there

Speaker 3: 1:02:52

That you can sort of, I think, I think maneuver this. However

Speaker 1: 1:02:55

You want a close analogy that we see often in criminal law is the crime called disorderly conduct. Okay. Kind of means whatever you want it to mean. Cops know this too. They show up if it's any sort of disturbance like anything, the statute is so broad. They can just say, oh well you were disorderly. Well, how was I being disorderly? That conduct was disorderly. And you go, well, what conduct they go? Well, I don't know. You just slam the door, shut too hard. And your neighbor called the police. You broke that ball. Somebody called the police are unhappy about that. You get arrested, you got to deal with the whole thing. It's a mess. Now we're talking, we're going to do the same thing here. A domestic extremist. I don't really know what that means. I'm not sure they do either. That's the point?

Speaker 3: 1:03:32

Wait it's to their benefit.

Speaker 1: 1:03:34

But there's a, there's this phrase called you make your money in the mess. When things are messy intentionally, then you can go out there and yeah,

Speaker 3: 1:03:42

Sort of clean it up. If you know how to navigate the mess, what the government is doing. All right, Sharon says all this is about domestic terrorism. It's aimed at

Speaker 1: 1:03:51

Anyone who is not on board with the communist BLM CRT agenda and the program to eradicate civil liberties and expand big brother government. I agree with that. I think that's really what stuff like this is for it is to give them,

Speaker 3: 1:04:02

Hey, just a blank slate to go do it.

Speaker 1: 1:04:05

Or they want under the guise of domestic extremism. We have Barbie. Ann says, this sounds like this addition acts under president Adams against Jefferson. I'm still in shock that the current president has an essence called me a terrorist. My father and uncles, all world war II, veterans are turning in their graves. I know it's a horrible thing. Isn't it? It really is a horrible thing. It's it's, it's totally inappropriate to call good American people

Speaker 3: 1:04:31

Terrorists, but that's the world

Speaker 1: 1:04:34

That we're living in. I guess we've got E add-on test says, nowadays, you can call anybody anything. You don't need to provide a proof or an explanation. You have been called a Nazi. I've been accused of white supremacy because I didn't post a BLM tag on Facebook. Where are these violent white supremacist attacks happening? I would love to know. I see a lot of cities that were on fire, but did not see the KKK with carrying torches. The shootings you mentioned were not white supremacist groups. There's no evidence. That's exactly my point. You on test and you just nailed it better than I could. You actually absolutely hit it. Right? We're talking a lot about this, but it feels like it's sort of a problem or a solution in search of a problem. I know that there are white supremacists groups. I know that there are racist people in this country, but I just haven't seen it to the same scale that I've seen BLM riots, the BLM protest, the burning of cities or the Antifa

Speaker 2: 1:05:21

Protests. But we're not talking about those. They were not even in this document,

Speaker 1: 1:05:26

Even once a control F shows nothing. They're talking about it in a bunch of other terms that serve their political ends. Where does that

Speaker 2: 1:05:33

Go? Well, it just elevates

Speaker 1: 1:05:36

And evolves right into political prosecutions. So we're already in the middle of it. We're already seeing what's happening with the Capitol hill people. You think it's going to change now? No, they just put it in a blueprint. 32 pages, go read it. We've got Cove. Queen says, so is anyone going to tell this administration that statistics exists and may be helpful to determine the actual dangers to our nation? Yeah, it would be good. Right? So where should we put our priorities

Speaker 2: 1:05:59

And truthfully, right.

Speaker 1: 1:06:00

If there was a report that came out, if somebody said, Hey, look, Rob, look, there are all these different groups. It's this group and this group and this group and this group and their membership, th th this group has got 50,000 members. This group has a hundred thousand members and this group has a million members. And here's what they're planning. They are responsible for this attack and this attack. And they've got this much land and they've got this many firearms and this many weapons, and this is their leader. And they've made some public threats and all of these things. Now I know that law enforcement can tell us almost nothing of that, right? Cause it's part of their investigation. They are doing their law enforcement thing where they're investigating these cases and trying to get to the bottom of it. So they're not going to come out and say, Hey, Rob, I know that you have some questions about what we're doing with these DBEs. And so let me give you just a rundown. We've got this group under surveillance and this group under surveillance and this group, and I get it, right. I'm not expecting that. I'm not asking for that. I don't want that. They can continue to do their investigations appropriately, but I would like a little bit more specificity on it because what they're telling us is a catastrophic problem. Doesn't match the same reality. I sat here, I watched it with my own eyes and even CNN was playing it right? Mostly peaceful protests as there's a, you know, a nuclear bomb went off behind that guy in the city back there, it is transparently obvious to me that there is one, there, there are certain contingents in this country that have a lot more activity. Let's put it that way than some of these other groups, at least that I can see if somebody wants to come out here and say, no, look, they're responsible for this much death, this much economic damage. They're responsible for this much catastrophe in America. I'll be the first one to say, wow, that's a, you're kidding me. I had no idea. Why didn't we hear about this on the New York times or CNN or what the Washington post or Fox

Speaker 2: 1:07:33

News for that matter? Why are we not hearing about it? Well, if they're going to tell us that something exists, I need a little bit more evidence. Unfortunately, I've lost about all the faith that we have in this current government in its current form. And I don't mean

Speaker 1: 1:07:48

Because it's Biden. I mean, in general, okay. The American government is just mostly ineffective and I'm not going to take anything. They tell us at face value anymore, but why should we, because they have been lying to us on record. They've been telling us, you can go back and play the clips of Fowchee, go back and play the clips of any number. One of these people who were supposed to be the scientist's guiding us through this crisis.

Speaker 2: 1:08:06

They were all off. All right, we've got,

Speaker 1: 1:08:10

I'm not guest says, I believe the domestic violent extremist is a clever wordplay to try to remove gun rights is a good point. As in most states, people merely accused of domestic violence, lose their gun rights. I think I may have made that point historically previously I'm not gas, but your point is still a stoop. Very, very well done. I agree with that. Right? And domestic violence has a lot of bad connotations in Arizona, automatic, right? You don't even have to be convicted. You. They just, the, the, the laws say that they're going to start to remove guns from you. And as we see more and more gun control, as we see more and more people start to, you know, just sort of, sort of, uh, expand the government's authority to remove certain rights from you. I think you're exactly right. I'm not guessed that this is sort of a wedge, right? They can, they can get in the door here and start to expand that up a little bit, just latch on to D the domestic violence tack on extremists, and then carry over a lot of the same automatic consequences that you get in domestic violence cases, right over into these other types of prosecutions, right? You, you call it a domestic

Speaker 2: 1:09:06

Violent extremists.

Speaker 1: 1:09:09

Maybe that was a crime that has nothing to do with guns. I could have been just a simple trespass case or something. You know, something along those lines that doesn't involve a firearm or a weapon, but now if they're classified under the domestic violent category and you apply a lot of the same domestic violence regulations towards that, then maybe they have to suddenly give up their gun rights instantaneously, because we already have an existing framework here. People don't also recognize that domestic violence is sort of an add-on in many states in Arizona, there isn't really a crime called domestic violence. You don't go and get charged with domestic violence by itself. You get charged with assault slash domestic violence. There was a physical action here, and that physical action involves somebody that you're in a relationship with. That's what makes it, makes it domestic violence. You can still assault somebody at a bar in your old house, whatever facilities,

Speaker 2: 1:09:56

You know, whatever you have sixth street or whatever. And that would not be a domestic situation, but because it involves somebody else, it elevates it. So domestic violence, maybe it could be just added on to whatever any other

Speaker 1: 1:10:09

Underlying criminal activity is from these extremists. It's a, it's a very nuanced point, but I think it's very important. I think language is important. That's exactly what they're doing. All right. Enough of that. We've got P says, I'm still confused. How white supremacy is the number one threat in America? Yeah. I don't know either. And you know, I've seen the number one threat, so they're getting very clever with this. They're getting very careful with this. I've seen Joe Biden say something like it is like the biggest threat, but then also sort of it's the biggest domestic threat. And it's the biggest

Speaker 2: 1:10:39

Is, uh, you know, American threat. And so I don't,

Speaker 1: 1:10:42

Don't ever think I've, I've heard him say, you know, white supremacy, supremacy is the number one threat in America, but pretty close to that. It's definitely up there. And so I wanna, I want to know,

Speaker 2: 1:10:52

Right. What's number two. What's number three. What's on the top. What's the top five is white supremacy

Speaker 1: 1:10:58

In the top five list of problems for America.

Speaker 2: 1:11:01

Is there a journalist anywhere who's going to ask anybody in the administration of that question, where do you place

Speaker 1: 1:11:09

Violent extremism on your list of priorities added on everything, the economy

Speaker 2: 1:11:14

COVID immigration, international

Speaker 1: 1:11:16

Relationships. Russia, if you want to include that, where is it?

Speaker 2: 1:11:20

This isn't the top five, the top 10, or isn't the top three? I don't know. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:11:24

Got Kenny one B says behind the firewalls, it appears that the FBI is obsessed with current and former law enforcement and military members who participated on January 6th. They frequently tally and publish running numbers of those involved. Yeah. They're very excited about it. The FBI too, right? They're almost not doing much else on their Twitter. They're just looking for that grandma. They still can't find grandma. She's still wandering around out there. The FBI, they got nothing better to do. So they're going to go track her down, make sure she's brought to justice. Good job, fellas. Kareem 1 65 says the situation currently

Speaker 2: 1:11:55

Is not the same as the worst of Nazi Germany. The city

Speaker 1: 1:11:59

[inaudible] currently is not the same. However, there are elements that to me resembled the early stages of Nazi-ism in Canada, they are detaining people and locking them up due to COVID. Yeah. And we talked about this a lot. So, uh, Viva fray is, uh, is, uh, we've done streams on each other's channel. He's doing a lot of, a lot of work on that topic up there. So I'll go check out his channel. Uh, pastors are being arrested for holding church services. I saw that until tomorrow Ontarians they cannot legally cross the border into Quebec. It's amazing. It's amazing.

Speaker 2: 1:12:27

And, uh, Justin Trudeau

Speaker 1: 1:12:29

Was out there at the G seven. Just kind of yucking it up with everybody at a beach side, barbecue, not exercising, much social distancing at all, but if you want to hold a church service, apparently in Canada,

Speaker 2: 1:12:39

You get arrested for that.

Speaker 1: 1:12:41

So that's a nice democracy. Isn't it? We have a best cemento and listen, I happen to, I've been to Canada and I happen to love our Canadian friends up there. I'm sorry that this has happening to you. And I'm, I'm hopeful

Speaker 2: 1:12:53

That enough people

Speaker 1: 1:12:55

Will speak out that it never happens again to you up there. Let me just say that we have Bessie. Manto says the biggest domestic terror

Speaker 2: 1:13:01

Undermining this country is those that promote and engage in election fraud from the

Speaker 1: 1:13:06

FBI election. Frogs is what we say on this channel. Uh, because Joe Biden is the president. We all know that, but certainly, uh, yeah,

Speaker 2: 1:13:13

I understand what you're saying. We got

Speaker 1: 1:13:16

Says, this is nothing new. After nine 11, the Patriot act went into effect Feis, a court fusion centers. What I think needs to change is the person, right? To see if there is a file open on them persons, right? To see if there's a file open on them, checking for correctness should be top of the issues. What do you think? So I like that idea. I mean, this is something that kind of, uh, attorneys often do for people. Somebody will come to our office and they'll say, Hey man, something happened. The cops showed up. Uh, they didn't, they didn't arrest me. They didn't cite me, but they took this. They took that. I'm afraid something's going to happen. So they come to us, they hire us for what's called an investigation. Then we will sort of reach out and figure out what's going on. Right. We can, uh, make contact with law enforcement. We can make contact with the prosecutor's office and see what kind of, what status the investigation is.

Speaker 2: 1:13:59

But it is a little bit of a game of, of, uh, finagling,

Speaker 1: 1:14:05

Right? They don't have to tell us much of anything. So

Speaker 2: 1:14:07

I understand your perspective.

Speaker 1: 1:14:09

It would be a lot more convenient for if I could just say, Hey, is there anything on this guy? And they had a log, everything, but that's unfortunately just not how investigations work, uh, because if you were under investigation

Speaker 2: 1:14:19

And they had to tell you

Speaker 1: 1:14:20

About that, then they couldn't oftentimes complete their investigation. So I think there's good reason why we don't have that rule, but, but yeah, it would be nice. I agree with you. It would be very nice to just go onto a website and say, Hey, Robert ruler, oh, look the FBI, CIA, D H S ATF. Great

Speaker 2: 1:14:35

Fun sleep. Well tonight be brave, says

Speaker 1: 1:14:38

I was planning to hang my Trump one flag, but the feds will be, huh?

Speaker 2: 1:14:41

Take me down now who didn't see this coming. Well, you just don't have to show them, you know, just, just, uh, we're rolling.

Speaker 1: 1:14:50

We're gonna have to make our little bunkers, I think at some point. All right. Great questions. Thank you for all of those that came over from watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our sort of off the, uh, off the big tech platform community. And we appreciate your support over there. There's a lot of good stuff over there. You can download a copy of my book, download a copy of the slides. You can get some pretty good promo codes for some of these courses here. Uh, here, this is my Gumroad account. So I'm starting to release some more stuff. That's, you know, some words kind of like info

Speaker 2: 1:15:18

Material and I would love your support

Speaker 1: 1:15:20

Over there. So if you go to gumroad.com/ Robert Mueller is a great app. You can download apps and you can listen to all of these. If you're on locals, be sure to check locals before you purchase anything, because there are some good promo codes over there. And if you don't want to buy anything, now I would still appreciate a follow up because I've got some cool stuff in the works. This is a QR code. If you prefer that, just take a picture with your phone. Also, absolutely got to talk about our law firm, R and R law group. You know, on this channel, we talk a lot about politics, but at our law firm, it's boots on the ground. Every day, we help people, people with felony charges, traffic, tickets, drug charges, DUI cases, everything, and everything in between. So if you need any help, there's another QR code. You can also give us a call at that number down there for 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4. We really appreciate all of your love and support. We're very passionate about what we do. So thank you for that. And we will continue on to the next segment. All right. So next up, we've got to talk about some,

Speaker 2: 1:16:16

Uh, how should I start this? A new viral video was just released showing the police in Maryland, tasing

Speaker 1: 1:16:23

A 17 year old that's right. This folk, this

Speaker 2: 1:16:25

Young man was smoking a vape pen

Speaker 1: 1:16:29

And the police went up upon him and they wanted him to stop. And so w when he didn't do that, he got tased. So we're going to take a look at this story. This is interesting. This video actually went viral. It's got 3 million

Speaker 2: 1:16:40

Views. A lot

Speaker 1: 1:16:41

Of people are up in arms about this, but if you watch very slowly, you're going to see the exact moment that prompted the officers to fire that taser at him. So we're going to go through this. Let's lay down a little bit of foundation here. First and foremost, we're going to get some backstory from the New York post, the viral video. It shows the cops tase him for vaping on the boardwalk, out in Maryland. So his hands are up as we're going to see

Speaker 2: 1:17:05

Mostly, okay, watch this. Watch this shocking

Speaker 1: 1:17:10

Video show. The moment the cops tase a teenager with his hands up, mostly up watch. Now I now viral video clip 3 million views. He was in ocean city on June 6th, without moving away. He appears to unhook a strap to his backpack. Which witnesses say was an order from the officers. Then clutch his stomach and fall after going stiff from being zapped with a taser. So you see this conversation, you're right. You're going to see this.

Speaker 2: 1:17:34

This guy slowly drop his hand back. Taser goes off right then and there. So if,

Speaker 1: 1:17:42

If, if, if the, the, the allegation is that is that his hands were,

Speaker 2: 1:17:45

And they shot him. When his hands were up, that's not accurate, right?

Speaker 1: 1:17:48

He actually does drop his hand down. Now, if the police at the same time are barking orders at him. We've seen this many times before we saw this and it case here in Arizona, the officer was Brailsford and was, was ordering this guy to stand up, sit down, cross your legs, get on your knees, crawl towards us. Don't crawl towards us. Lay flat on the ground, all these different

Speaker 2: 1:18:10

Instructions. And then when the guy here in Arizona,

Speaker 1: 1:18:13

No, no, actually reached his hand back. The officer shot and killed him. That didn't happen here. Okay. This guy, you know, he, he, they may have been barking orders at him. We're going to watch the video. You're going to see there's a lot of action there, but let's frame this out a little bit more. So stop. He was standing there and upset woman screams. What is wrong with you? Another man asks y'all did that for no reason. A woman tells the officer. He was literally standing there. Okay? We are aware of the social media videos. The town set the use of force from these arrests. We'll go through a multi-level examination. However, the statements, stress, our officers are permitted to use force per their training to overcome exhibited resistance. So let's see what this looks like. Saturday's incident, Brian Everett Anderson. So he's actually 19 was charged with this

Speaker 2: 1:18:56

Conduct. Second degree assault failure to provide proof of identity.

Speaker 1: 1:19:02

Let's well, let's see what this second degree assault looks like. Then we have Kamir Anthony Day 19 arrested for allegedly yelling profanities also charged with disorderly conduct. You see these charges. I just got done talking about disorderly conduct. They charge it for everything obstructing and hindering, failing to obey a reasonable order, resisting an arrest. In second degree assault, we have also John teak, John Joseph, John Lewis, 18 same stuff, pushing a public safety aid, yelling profanities. We'll try and pick up a police bicycle and hidden eight. He was charged also with disorderly conduct and some other things let's see Derrick Dwayne was busted for becoming disorderly. When he was told to move from standing on private property, warms, charged with trespassing. They were seen in the Maryland district court released on their own personal we're cognizant. So let's see what's going on here. This is

Speaker 2: 1:19:48

The incidents. Okay. So his hands are up when he's sort of surrounded by several different officers, police,

Speaker 1: 1:19:55

Ocean city, Maryland, taser to 17 year old, apparently he's 19. So we'll make a note of that after they accused him of vaping. Now, as we play this video, watch this hand over here. Okay. So he, he drops

Speaker 2: 1:20:05

This hand down here and

Speaker 1: 1:20:08

That's exactly when he gets taped.

Speaker 4: 1:20:13

[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:20:25

All right. Let's watch that one more time before we let it play through again. So see if you can hear anything. The audio is pretty loud. Let's see if we can hear them shout and order

Speaker 4: 1:20:46

[inaudible] back up.[inaudible] he was really standing there. He wasn't arresting her. He wasn't nothing.

Speaker 1: 1:21:07

All right. So this is a apparently another angle, but that doesn't look like the same. Yeah. All right. So yeah. You know, as you can see, it is, uh, not a good situation. Now it's hard to tell whether the cops said anything about take the backpack off or anything like that. You know, it's hard to sort of, uh, process this when you're somebody who's sort of being surrounded by three or four or five or six officers, and they're all barking orders at you. Maybe he did hear somebody say, take your backpack off. So he's going to take it off. And they shot him, you know, tased them. Anyways, candidly, that guy is, is, is, uh, fortunately he's not dead. You know, it's, it's, um, not a good situation. So we're going to see what law enforcement says, and they're going to continue to do their investigation. So next up, we've got another situation out of Savannah, Georgia. So this gentleman here, his name is William Zachary Harvey. He's a man who died in police custody. He's a son, uncle, and caregiver. So to Charlie Francis, he was a brother. He was at in Morgan's and uncle. And he was found hanging in a Savannah police department, interrogation room on April 2nd, after being brought in for questioning for aggravated assault, right? This guy right here. So he, uh, died by suicide, through a hanging and five doors. Officers were fired as a result. Wonder what happened there? Let's take a look. One is on probation while five other were fired, said the attorneys of the man who died, Savannah police department. They fired these officers. We got corporal silver, Lucia ner. We got Sergeant Michael Kerr. They were both immediately terminated. After the initial investigation, Matthew White was suspended, but three other officers. We've got Sergeant Christopher Hewett, corporal Erica Tremblay and officer David Curtis. They were terminated after sharing a meme of the hanging death in a group chat, not good. So I don't know what that means, right? Obviously I didn't go try to find this meme or anything like that,

Speaker 2: 1:23:13

Posterior, but it sounds like maybe somebody took a picture of him and then they share

Speaker 1: 1:23:17

In a group chat. Obviously that's not appropriate, especially for law enforcement. I understand gallows humor. Okay. I get that. But not in this context, totally inappropriate. A man died in their custody, probably due to their negligence to some degree, and it's not appropriate to be joking about it. So another officer was praised placed on probation. According to police department release, Harvey was taken to police headquarters for questioning in connection to the assault. He was in an interview room alone when he was found hanged. Okay. Now they're supposed to check you for that type of stuff to make sure that doesn't happen. But what did officers say that they found him suffering from injuries sustained by

Speaker 2: 1:23:57

Object in his possession. Wonder what that could have been, right. It could have been

Speaker 1: 1:24:01

Belt could have been a shoelace, could have been a number of things. The police departments release red police attempted lifesaving measures, but they were unsuccessful. He died in police custody on April 2nd, attorney Mel Davis, who was representing the family, said the assault occurred at it may have occurred at a gas station, but no other details are known. The news conference came, uh, that they were fired when, uh, uh, city officials came out and discussed that city council didn't have any input on the termination, but the investigation is what prompted it. So I promised the family that there would be an investigation, says van Johnson, attorneys, Francis echo those sentiments. He said, today's a tough day. It's a tough day for the city.

Speaker 2: 1:24:37

Savannah, for those who look up to the Savannah police tough day for the Harvey family, they're going to be considering a civil case. As far as the,

Speaker 1: 1:24:46

The city knows the case has not been turned over to the county district attorney's office yet. So they're going to be discussing whether to charge them criminally or not. Harvey's family begs for answers. They say it's just hard finding out what happened and

Speaker 2: 1:24:59

How it happened. You got so many questions,

Speaker 1: 1:25:01

We've got some answers. We just want to know the truth. So here's the family here. And, uh, you know, they're just trying to get some answers. So we've got a little bit

Speaker 2: 1:25:09

But of, um, of activity there. Let's see what the question

Speaker 1: 1:25:15

It does. Look like we've got, I'm not gas as the police. Might've been a little bit jumpy, but ocean city has caused for them to be jumping shootings every weekend on the boardwalk. Oh really? Yeah. No, that's not good. I didn't know that. Yeah. I mean, I guess, I guess that sort of confirms my original thought that that guy is lucky. They didn't shoot him. You know? I mean, gosh, that's not good. We've got last question here on the segment four, we move on. We've got Furby. Slayer says, they said get down from what I hear. But notice the portly cop has a big grin on his face. Vaping. That's all we need more useless laws. Yeah. I mean, probably one of the most offensive things that you could fathom these days is his vape

Speaker 2: 1:25:54

On a boardwalk in the open air. Nobody around take six cops to come in there and make an arrest for that. Don't you love justice in America.

Speaker 1: 1:26:04

All right. So once again, go check out my Gumroad please. If you could, I would love a review. If you, if you enjoyed the law enforcement interaction, training would love a review down there or a follow. And of course, do not forget to check out our law firm and the RNR law group. All of the information is down in the description below. So we've got one final segment before we wrap up on outta here. Normally I have to kind of move quickly on Tuesdays, but we have a little bit extra time today. So we'll go through this. Cause this is an interesting story. All right. So critical race theory. It's been a topic we spent a lot of time talking about on this channel and it's been something that we've actually got some examples we've gone through them. We've talked about what some people who are speaking to school boards have been identifying. We're talking about parents saying my kids were being taught this and I've got a problem with it. And we've talked about, we've played clips of different things that are happening in our schools, in our military, in our healthcare system, in many other places around the country and the world. Now we have though, Terry McAuliffe, you may remember this name from the Hillary Clinton, the bill Clinton years, Terry McAuliffe was somebody spent a lot of time in those circles. And now he's running for governor of Virginia. Well, when it comes to critical race theory, Mr. McCullough happens to think that CRT is nothing more than a right wing conspiracy. This is what he said on Fox news or an interview that Fox news is covering. He says that the critical race theory concerns is nothing but a right wing. Conspiracy says it's totally made up by Donald Trump and Glen Yuncken said McAuliffe. So he's at Virginia democratic nominee for governor. He's dismissing it as a conspiracy audio obtained by Fox news, which was talking about his opponent and the former president Trump. He said, oh, that's another white right wing conspiracy. So this is totally made up by Trump and Yuncken that's who they are. It's a conspiracy theory. So let's listen in. See what he had to say,

Speaker 5: 1:27:58

Listen to what you're saying about education. I was just wondering, like with all the Republicans are talking about like critical race theory and they're making this huge deal about it. And it's all of the conversation in the news with Virginia. Like, what are you going to say to all those people making education about that?

Speaker 6: 1:28:11

Uh, that's another right wing conspiracy. This is totally made up by Donald Trump and Glenn Young. This is who they are. It's a conspiracy theory. And you know what people want to know about, why are we not paying our teachers? Why are we down a thousand teachers today? Why? And while you're 50% of our schools, 50 years old, this is what people want to know about. So let's pay our teachers, let's get our children access to broadband. Let's make sure we get at-risk children taken care of with free tag. Those are what the Virginia care about. Right.

Speaker 1: 1:28:42

All right. So that was Terry McAuliffe. And he said that the CRT stuff was a conspiracy theory. Right. All made up by Trump, all made up by Younkin and all this stuff. Now I sort of recall when I was going through college, this was some time ago. I graduated in 2008 from Arizona state university. And then I went to law school. But when I was at ASU, I sort of remember that there were some interesting things happening there. There was some time ago, right. It's been long time. And I was thinking back to my, my, my sort of time there at ASU, there was this sort of the curriculum that you had to, to sort of achieve in order the graduate required that you had to go take these cultural classes or something like that. Right. Uh, if you, you know, if you've been to college recently, maybe they did something like this where you had to take like a C class, right. That's a culture class and you needed to take a, uh, you know, an art and a class like as an art class or whatever. And so I had to go through this and I, when I was at ASU, I was somebody who was, uh, not particularly left-wing let me just leave it there. And so the idea that, yeah, I had to go take these classes that just did not interest me in any way, shape or form was sort of something that I put off. So I kind of waited until later in my college career, before I had to take one of these classes, one of these classes was called women in other cultures, and it was sort of the, one of the last classes I had to take it fit in my schedule, one of the worst experiences of my entire life. And I want, um, I'm, I'm, I'm being exaggerative here, but it was, it was a bad educational experience for me. And I want to explain sort of why that was, I want to show you before we get into that something that is a little bit more recent. So I went to ASU, uh, graduated in 2008, as I mentioned, that's far away, right? That's a while back. So I can't use my own evidence as, uh, as an indication to show Terry McAuliffe. That may be in fact, this is not a conspiracy. I can, you know, I can say, well, you know, this is what I experienced, but that was like in 2007, 2008 long time ago. But what about today? And so I was, you know, poking around, uh, sort of, you know, reading through some, some critical race theory stuff. I follow Chris Rufo. And at some point, at some time I came across this YouTube channel, right? This is a YouTube channel over from Penn state. So I want to just show you around this briefly. So this says that there's a livestream here is a sociology one 19, okay, this is the class. And so they've got a YouTube channel for this class. And you'll notice that this was posted about two years ago, right? So this would have been in 2019, which is before COVID. So we were still having classes being taught there. And so what they do is they actually stream their, their lectures. So this is out of Penn state. This is social 19. And the name of the course is called race and ethnic relations. It's being taught at Penn state university, spring thousand and 19. So this is when people were still going to classes. If you have more questions, you can go to[inaudible] dot org. The name of the professor, the guy who teaches this is this guy. And he goes by the name of Dr. Samuel Richards. Okay. He's an award-winning teacher. He's a sociologist at Penn state. He's the instructor of the largest race, gender and cultural relations course in the United States, over 760 students each semester, 25 year legacy. That course was the subject of an Emmy award winning television broadcast called you can't say that. Okay. You can't say that the course is currently streamlined to the world every Tuesday and Thursday, Sam's willingness to take risks and push new ideas is what led him to be named one of the 101 most dangerous professors

Speaker 3: 1:32:05

In America. So I guess

Speaker 1: 1:32:09

That's a good thing, or I don't know. I thought the dangerous people were dangerous. Like you had to be thrown off of the internet if you're dangerous, but this is a different type of dangerous. So, okay. Sam obtained his PhD from Rutgers focus on socioeconomic development in Africa, Latin America focuses on any quality, currently focused on inequality, stemming from racial and gender differences. And he works to develop programs that bridge cultural divides, arguing that empathy is the core of sociology. His radical experiment in empathy is one of the most widely viewed Ted talks online reached over 3 million people and that talk. He walks the audience through how an average Iraqi citizen might experience the U S policies in their country. Okay. As the director, he's a currently co-director of another NATO program, primary goal is to offer people in conflict, some sort of help. He is married to his wife, Lauren Mulvee, he's called the parents of radical empathy. All right. So I want to show you this little scene from this. Guy's a YouTube channel and, uh, there's this w what we're looking at here

Speaker 3: 1:33:07

Of course, is a, a black

Speaker 1: 1:33:09

Young man and a white young man sitting in front of a classroom of, I don't know, four or 500 people. That's a big, big audience. And we know that he said that he has about 700 students, maybe it's that maybe he has, you know, teaches two classes, maybe 3 50, 400 kids here. So, uh, in, in, in my experience, when I was at ASU, I had something very similar. Like this happened to me in my women's in other cultures class. And it was kind of a shocking thing that happened. I want to sort of share that with you now, but what happened is that the professor called me up just like this. And in this class, I was one of about probably 40 to 60 women. Okay. It was a, it was almost all women. And I was one of three guys when the class started. And then by about the third or fourth weekend, the other two guys bailed. And I think I was the last guy in the entire,

Speaker 3: 1:33:53

Uh, in the entire class. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:33:55

And you might say that's a pretty good thing if you're going to be in a class room full of women, but it wasn't worth the brutal

Speaker 3: 1:34:03

Needles

Speaker 1: 1:34:03

In my ears on a daily basis from this professor who was talking about on a regular basis, how awful men are. Okay. And is literally that men are responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. So I had to sit there and just deal with that for a semester, because I needed that stupid credit. Right. I have no interest in women, in other cultures. I, I, you know, I love women. I love other cultures, but I don't have an interest in that class. Being taught by some lunatic professor who wants to belittle men for 90 minutes every day. I wasn't interested in that. I had other visions for my life, but ASU told me that I needed that. They said, no, we don't think you're, well-rounded enough. You need some more culture. You need to think like we do. And because you're a white male, you have to go do these things. And we think that you are sort of incomplete unless you have it. So, okay, fine. I went and I did it don't think that it changed anything other than made me very resentful towards this particular professor. And I'll tell you why. So what she did is the same thing, right? She called us up in front of the classroom like this. So she called me up and she called another woman up another, another, you know, gal college gout. And what she did is she stood us right next to each other, just like this guy's doing with these two people. Now he's doing it here with race. So you're going to see him start to sort of, you know, uh, I would say borderline attack these two kids, uh, by, by putting them in front of a whole audience like this and asking them some very, very, very difficult questions in front of everybody. He's going to ask them for their full names. Okay. First and last name. This is on his channel. So he's, he's outing them publicly and he's going to sort of make them feel badly before he, he finishes the conversation. Now, in my situation, he's doing this between, you know, a white kid and a black kid in my situation. She did it between me and another woman. And I am not a tall guy specifically, but I do like to lift weights. And so I sort of have a girth to me. Right. I'm sort of wide sort of like a, like a bulldog to some degree. Faith knows what I'm talking about. High faith. All right. So, so, so that's kind of how I, I'm sort of built, right. I'm short and stocky. So this other girl was not like that at all. And she picked us out specifically. She picked me, she picked this girl. She brought us both up to the front of the class in front of all these people. And she went through both of our bodies top to bottom, and I'm not kidding you. And she compared and contrast both of these things. And the entire time she was talking about sort of my physical traits and how sort of privileged I was to be a man who was muscular. And she talked about, you know, my, my physical power over this woman. And it was a very belittling conversation for both of us. Okay. I felt just terrible. And she felt terrible. And it was one of the most uncomfortable things that we've ever been through. And we, after the class, we went through. I actually talked to her and we both just kind of like, what, what was that? You know, because she was, she was making it into this thing, like, because I lift weights because I am physically fit. I am sort of, you know, playing into this toxic male identity. And that, that toxic male identity is giving me all of these privileges in life that, that opened all these doors for me that are not going to be open for this young gal. And, and I was sitting here going, what the hell are you talking about? I go, you don't know this girl and you don't know anything about her. Right. She's probably as powerful as hell. She turned out to be pretty, pretty great, but she's, you know, full of energy, full of life, very intelligent, a lot of different things. We look physically different, but so what, right. She was bringing us up in front of the class and telling us about ourselves. Like you're, you're, you're a white guy with muscles and, you know, you like to exercise a lot. That's basically all I did in college was, uh, you know, drink alcohol and lift weights and then just sleep through the classes. Cause it was such a drag, but it was, you know, it was something that it was very, very condescending to both of us. And, you know, I didn't feel like I knew anything more about women. I didn't feel like I had any more empathy for women. I felt very degraded. She felt very degraded. I think the entire class felt put off by this and there was no progress that was being made at all. I actually, I actually, you know, that, that stuck with me more than any other, um, really any other experience in college and not in a good way. Right. It was very, very belittling. It was very condescending and she may say, and it wasn't just me. Right. It was, it was the other gal too. And I think it was the rest of the classroom, quite frankly. Now that was early on. Right. That was 2008, 2007 ish. And so this has changed pretty dramatically in the years that have elapsed since then, but it's still going on. And I, you know, for those of you who maybe have not been in college in some time or, you know, plan not to go to college, which I probably wouldn't go again if I could, but it would be something that this is what's happening. So let's take a look here. You're going to watch the professor do the same thing. Okay. I went through this classroom. Wasn't exactly this big, but it was very similar to this. And I feel really badly for both of these kids. I feel bad for, for these students. I think this presser, this, this professor has a lot of, uh, uh, you know, probably, you know, narcissistic tendencies or something's going on with him to, to have to abuse people like this, but let's listen to

Speaker 7: 1:39:00

No. Is it to know that you're walking around with that kind of benefit, that kind of affirmative action?

Speaker 8: 1:39:08

Well, like I don't want to S I mean, like, I guess this could be all tied into like the idea of like white privilege and everything. And I guess it's just like, I mean, like, I don't think it should be true. Like, it's kind of, it's crazy. Like, I dunno, I don't really know what to think of it, but like, it's just, it is what it, like, I dunno, I don't want to say this is what it is, but like, it doesn't seem like the statistic, like it's not changing, like, like it's, I don't know.

Speaker 7: 1:39:37

So it's con it's confusing. It's confusing. It shouldn't be that way. Yeah. And yet it is that way. And yet you're wa you're gonna, when you get your degree, when they hang you your degree, bro, here's Tim, here's your Timothy, what's your last name? Eimer. So they're going to call your name out and you're going to walk across the stage and it's going to be Timothy Heimer, and you're going to walk across the stage and you're going to shake a hand here, you take that, you're going to shake the hand and then you're going to get the degree you're going to like, yeah. And your parents are going to cheer, whatever, and you're going to have this degree and you're going to think, oh yeah, I fully hearing the degree. I got it. And I deserve this and I deserve everything that comes to it. Yeah. Well, you know what, what's your last name bro? Davis dude, miles Davis, same thing. Miles Davis and miles is gonna walk across the stage and he's going to have the same thing. He's going to get the degree and shake a hand and go like, yeah. And his family's going to cheer and everyone's going to be like, you're going to be at graduation. And you're going to assume that these two guys are equal and they're not equal. It's not, we are not, they're my friends. We are not there.

Speaker 1: 1:41:08

All right. So, uh, you know, I don't even know what really his point is on that. Like, you know, we're not equal. I, you know, I don't know if anybody's saying that that is true, you know, are we all saying that everything in America is perfect and that we're all equal? Or what is he saying that the white kids degree is not as good as the black kids degree or the black kids degree is not equal to the white kids degree. I don't, I don't know what, what, what he's actually talking about. But I remember when I watched that, I remember that experience that I had. I thought it was very offensive. I think it doesn't really help much of anything, you know, are those two guys going to go after, you know, leave the, leave the classroom and they're going to go, Hey man, you know, you're right. We're actually not equal in our, our, our degrees don't actually match up. And so let's solve racial issues here. You know, is this going to solve more, more racial problems? Or is this going to just sort of exacerbate them? Because that's what it feels like to me. Right? What he told them, what are you told that black kid right there is that no matter what you do, you're not going to be equal to this guy right here, because he's white. You are a permanent victim. You will never amount to what he amounts to because we're not there yet, whatever that means. So I'm not real sure what he wants to do to fix this or what the rest of his garbage course looks like. But it is, it is happening in our schools. So I don't know what Terry McAuliffe is talking about, but that is, that is the reality, right? We're talking about these issues on a regular basis. They're, they're sort of splitting people down the middle. They're saying you're a white kid. You're, you're, you're a black kid and we're going to put you in front of the stage and we're going to make you just hash these issues out in front of everybody. And you're going to out yourself. And this is part of progress in America. Now, I guess this is the, this is the conversation that we all should be having. So that we're less racist, I guess, by, by victimizing certain demographics, by teaching an ideology that, that makes sure that a certain segment of our country knows that they are unequal, knows that they will never amount to equality. Unless we can do something about this. That's a tall order you're telling me that we have to, we have to, you know, that that young black kid is going to have to sort of reform all of America, change all of the institutions throughout the entire country. Before he gets a shot at equality, it's a pretty tall order. It seems like it might be depressing for somebody in that position. Somebody might be asking themselves, maybe they don't have the bandwidth, the capacity to go out there and achieve those things versus telling us, telling somebody, listen, the world may be not actually fair. Okay. There may be racist out there. There may be certain privileges that some people have. Okay. I talked about my stockings, okay. That might be a privilege to some people. Other people might consider height to be a privilege. I am not, you know, height privileged. For example, we all have different characteristics about our lives that we have to deal with on a regular basis. Not everything is going to be equitable all the time. You can't manage that. So I think personally, the better approach, I was not somebody who was born with a silver spoon. In my hand, if I would have been approached by somebody and said, Rob, life sucks. Everybody in the world is out to get you. You are a perpetual victim. You just worked hard for a degree. Doesn't really matter though, because that other guys

Speaker 3: 1:44:00

A better starting point in life, you can't do anything because he started ahead of you. And,

Speaker 1: 1:44:07

And I guess, I guess my, my recourse would be well, we've got to change the system, right? Don't we don't we professor, what should we do? Well, we've got to keep talking about this. We got to keep talking about CRT. We got to go out there and fight for a cause we've got to go join this movement or that movement in order to go effectuate social change. Meanwhile, I have to live my life for the next couple decades as an oppressive victim who can't accomplish anything on my own, because society is so oriented against me. Not a

Speaker 3: 1:44:31

Good way to teach anybody.

Speaker 1: 1:44:34

Yeah. I wouldn't want to be taught that way. The incentive structure is all wrong rather than encouraging people to go out there and make something of themselves. We tell people, what's the point. There's nothing you can do for yourself because society is so oriented against you. That any attempts to progress are few times. That's that professor and he's getting, you know, accolades and accommodations all over the place for having a hard conversation with people, right? You have to have a hard conversation. You have to have these little struggle sessions

Speaker 3: 1:45:01

For progress to be made. I don't know,

Speaker 1: 1:45:04

By, for a second, I think it's counterproductive. I think it is reversing the proper role of incentives in our society. And guess what folks, I think the kids who are going through this and the ones who were soaking it up and lapping it up and the parents are patting them on the backs for it. They're all going to be at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. And it's a sad thing and I don't have kids, but man, I would be really rethinking a lot of this now as, as hot and as heated as I can get over that story. There are some other stories that just ring the bell the right way and make you smile ear to ear. You know, I've been sort of ranting about the CRT stuff for some time, because I think it is a big part of the problem. We have a lot of, a lot of issues here in America, but we are educating kids to be sort of out of alignment with, I think are the principles of success. The stuff that makes people happy, healthy, and free are being educated out of our systems and replace with an idea that we're all oppressors that are sort of waging war on the different victim demographic groups throughout America. So one is going to be successful. One is not now I've been pointing this out for us

Speaker 3: 1:46:06

Some time here. Terry McAuliffe says that this stuff is a conspiracy theory every now and then you see that story. That just goes, oh yeah, we're

Speaker 1: 1:46:15

Talking about that. This one is the case.

Speaker 3: 1:46:18

So when we're talking about our woke schools, who better to say,

Speaker 1: 1:46:24

Sort of give us an idea about how bad it can get, then somebody who used to go to school in North Korea. Well, we have somebody, we actually have a north Korean defector. Her name is yet Yon MI park. Well, what does she have to say? She says that the schools in America are not so good. She slams the school

Speaker 3: 1:46:44

Calls and calling them woke, who is this woman? She's a north Korean defector. She said she viewed the U S as a country of free thought and free speech.

Speaker 1: 1:46:52

Well, she went to college here. Yoan MI park attended Columbia university was immediately struck by what she viewed as anti-Western sentiment and a focus on political correctness that had her thinking quote, even North Korea,

Speaker 3: 1:47:08

Isn't this nuts. Do you see what I'm talking about? It's just too good of a story.

Speaker 1: 1:47:13

Even North Korea is not as nuts as Columbia university. I always suspected that, but now we know we have here. We got from Yani parks. She says,

Speaker 3: 1:47:25

I expected that I would, I was expecting

Speaker 1: 1:47:29

That I was paying this fortune all the time and energy to learn

Speaker 3: 1:47:32

How to think, but they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think

Speaker 1: 1:47:38

Realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different, but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying. She fled North Korea at age 13 in a voice that took her and her family, uh, sometime to travel to China. Then South Korea, before she went to school in New York, her professors gave students quote, trigger warnings, sharing the wording from readings in advance. So people could opt out of reading or even sitting in class during discussions. So trigger warnings. I've told you about this guys. I've said this here on this channel. If you go into clubhouse, which is that app that we use now, Twitter has spaces. Go try to find one of these woke rooms. And if you pick a topic about, uh, you know, environmental justice discussion, you know, June 21, go, go into that room and just see how they operate trigger warnings. And here in Columbia, apparently you can just decide not to read something. You just say, I don't like that topic. It's offensive to me because it reminds me of my father. Okay. So you don't have to read that. Uh, it was, it was, uh, a chapter on macro economics and supply chains. But yeah, if your father, if that triggers some, some, uh, bad memories of your father, don't read that there, Johnny, you can, you can be fine. Come back to class. Um, after you've had your child latte and we'll see you back there on Wednesday. So going to Columbia, the first thing that she learned was

Speaker 3: 1:48:51

Quote, safe space.

Speaker 1: 1:48:53

Every problem they explained us is because of white men. They said some of the discussions of white privilege reminded her of the caste system in her own native country, where people were categorized based on their ancestors. So you see what's happening here. We just played a clip of it happening in a real classroom. In one class, a teacher disgusting discussing Western civilization, asked students if they had a problem with the name of it

Speaker 3: 1:49:14

Topic, most students raise their hands. Some, she said, mentioned the word, the issues with colonial slant

Speaker 1: 1:49:21

Discussion and classes often began with professors asking students their preferred pronouns

Speaker 3: 1:49:26

With the use of

Speaker 1: 1:49:27

Quote, they becoming scary. Is she feared being socially penalized for not being inclusive enough with her vocabulary? She says, English is my third language. It's very hard for me to say he and she, and sometimes I misuse them. Okay. Now she told Fox that she was also chided for saying she enjoyed the writings of Jane. Austin said, I love those books. I thought it was a good thing. Then she do, you know, those writers had a colonial mindset. They were racists and bigots and they subconsciously are brainwashing. Them park said North Korea students were constantly informed about the American bastard. I thought north Koreans were the only people who hated Americans, but turns out there are a lot of people hating this country in this country. She told

Speaker 3: 1:50:05

The post, which just makes

Speaker 1: 1:50:07

Me just want to do a Cartwheel right now, cancel culture and shouting down. Opposing voices is becoming an issue of self-censorship park who Chronicle her escape from North Korea and life in the repressive regime. She wrote a memoir in 2015, titled in order to live set, American seem willing to give their rights away. Not realizing they may never come

Speaker 3: 1:50:25

Back. She should

Speaker 1: 1:50:27

Run for office for something voluntarily. These people are censoring each other, silencing each other, no force behind it. Other times in history, there's a military coup d'etat like a force comes in taking your rights away and silencing you. But this country is choosing to be silenced, choosing to give their rights

Speaker 3: 1:50:44

Park said that

Speaker 1: 1:50:45

What a country could become with rights and discourse. She knows what that's like when they're stripped away. She said, North Korea was pretty insane. Like the first thing my mom taught me was don't even whisper the birds and mice could hear me. She told me the most dangerous thing that I had in my body was my tongue. So I knew how dangerous it was to say the wrong things in a country park grew up in the last Stalinist dictatorship. When his people dying from starvation said, Americans are obsessed with oppression. Even though there was not much oppression, they've witnessed firsthand.

Speaker 3: 1:51:12

She said, this is completely

Speaker 1: 1:51:13

Nuts. This is unbelievable. I don't know why people are collectively going crazy

Speaker 3: 1:51:16

Like this or together at the same time. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:51:20

I talked about this yesterday, right? Sort of this idea that people are just bored. So they're just going to go out there and fight for a cause or something. I'm not saying that there are a lot of good causes. A lot of people doing a lot of good things for the right reasons. But a lot of people who sort of like never been oppressed, they've been born with a silver spoon in their mouth and they're going to Columbia of all places. And they've been handed everything. Most of them are a lot of them, right? It's a, it's a, it's an Ivy league. Isn't Columbia and Ivy league rights where the most prestigious schools in the country.

Speaker 3: 1:51:46

So we have a bunch of complainer's there

Speaker 1: 1:51:51

Woman goes there and says, all they're doing is complaining about white men and oppression. She said, the situation in North Korea is one thing because the people don't have access to the internet. They have limited exposure to the globe, but students here have everything. She said that as a child, she had thought dictator Kim Jong UN was starving and overworked until she was in North Korea, shown pictures to show he was large compared to the other people who looked thin and hungry. So what it does when you're brainwashed, she says, in some ways the U S are brainwashed, even though there's evidence. So clearly in front of their eyes, they can't see.

Speaker 3: 1:52:23

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:52:26

Americans don't know, you know, don't know what is coming down the line. And that's why we're all here together.

Speaker 3: 1:52:30

Either slamming our fist down to make sure that

Speaker 1: 1:52:33

We can sound the alarm. Good news though. We've got some activity in Congress. Congress is now our federal Congress. We've been talking about a lot of the activity from the states. And we've talked about the concept that the states can be a little individual laboratories of democracy. I think Sandra Day O'Connor coined

Speaker 3: 1:52:48

That phrase. And the idea is

Speaker 1: 1:52:51

That they can sort of solve their own problems. And I like that idea a lot. The idea that, you know, things that are local problems are solved locally. If you have a school that you want to send your kid to should have the choice to do that, the government's going to be funding education. My opinion should be funding choice, allowing you to pick what school to go to rather than having a government mandate that comes out and says no critical race theory or conversely, which is probably going to happen at some point some other school or some other state or city that comes out and mandate CRT, right? We're going to see this battle unfold before our very eyes and we're already seeing it right now. 16, 19 project is sort of well underway in New York and some other places. It's my understanding. And now we've, we're seeing our federal government is sort of springing into action. We have representative Ken buck over from Colorado. He reintroduced a bill in the house of representatives that is going to ban federal funds from going to a school curriculum that teaches the 1619 project. So we've got buck alongside house colleague got rec Rick Allen from Georgia, Tom cotton, Senator from Arkansas. They reintroduced this bill called the saving America history, saving American history act. It's going to ban federal funds from being used to teach the project or school districts. The 16, 19 project claims. If you're not familiar with that, that America's defining year was not when our nation was founded in 17, 17 76, but rather when the first slave ships arrive on the shores in 16, 19. Okay? So they're changing the, uh, the birth of America's Dade, their buck slam critical race theory and the release saying the ideology does not belong in schools. That kids should not be treated that they're going to be treated. Uh, T T taught that they're treated differently by race critical race theory is dangerous. anti-American has no place in our schools. He said, Alan torch the 16, 19 project to something that was trying to quote indoctrinate students saying that the United States is an evil country warned against teaching revisionist history in the classroom. So the legislation is going to try to keep federal dollars out of there. And then we have, uh, cotton gave his own warning. He said, activists in schools want to teach our kids to hate America 16, 19 project. So a lot of people here are sort of opposing what Terry McAuliffe was saying at the beginning. Our Arkansas Republicans also recently introduced legislation to ban teaching of CRT. We we've been talking a lot about this, right? I think

Speaker 3: 1:55:02

Iowa did it. And I think, uh,

Speaker 1: 1:55:05

Gosh, I can't remember the other states, a lot of states are, are sort of, the dominoes are falling as it were, and we're starting to see some response. Parents are sick of this, and I'd be very curious, you know, even the parents who are sort of in favor of some of this conversation, I'd be very curious if they would send their kids to some of these things,

Speaker 3: 1:55:22

Teachings, you know, what, what a, what a woke parent

Speaker 1: 1:55:26

Really be okay with the professor calling him up in front of the classrooms and scolding them

Speaker 3: 1:55:31

White daughter, about how much

Speaker 1: 1:55:34

She has in front of 300 people. I'm not so sure that than most parents would say, man, that sounds like a really formative experience. Sounds like an amazing education. I'm paying 50 grand a year for that yet. Right? Tuberville. Now another Senator, he joins six other Republican senators in support of a bill that would prohibit federal funds. So we've got senators and Republicans. Now he says, when done right education is the key to freedom. U S government should not spend a single taxpayer dollar to teach children to dislike their country. So he's, co-sponsoring this thing. And we're going to see if it goes anywhere last month, Alabama attorney general Marshall in 19 other state attorney generals, they wrote the federal education secretary. They oppose critical race theory and to reveal, and many others are all joining in on it, right? The saving American history act. So as we know, the Republicans don't control anything in Congress right now. They don't control the house of representatives. They don't control the Senate. Currently the Democrats do, they it's a 50 50 split, but the Democrats have Camila Harris. So they've got her in the bag. So, uh, uh, the Republicans going to be able to move this through. No, absolutely not, but we've got midterms coming up here pretty soon. Don't we? 2022. We'll see if the balance of power changes a little bit, regardless, you know, is Joe Biden gonna sign this into law? No, of course not. So while it's a good idea, I think that they're moving in this direction, at least bringing some more attention to this. They're going to use this more or less. I think as a, uh, as a political tool, more than an actual, uh, attempt to pass it is as, as where we're at. So let's take some questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com we've got, I'm not gassing the house as, as someone who went to uni around the same time as you. I went to a class on history of South Africa. The teacher was telling me how brutal the murder of a tourist activist and the subsequent pardoning story of Amy Beal was actually a good thing and justified because they were expressing their grievances against colonial oppressors. That turned me from your average college lefty to the rights, right? Yeah, I know, man. It was my experience too. You know, honestly, I didn't have much, much interest in the topic, you know, of women in other cultures. I like the idea of learning about other cultures. I like to travel and other cultures, I like learning about a lot of different things and I'm not somebody who, who wants to encourage any type of discrimination. I love the idea that we all have equal opportunities, but I don't like the concept of forced, mandatory, equitable outcomes, equal opportunities. Okay. Equal outcomes is communist Marxist garbage. And you know, we're so slowly starting to trend that direction, I think. And you know, I had, I had a very similar experience to your experience. It, you know, I went from somebody who wasn't particularly interested in that topic to somebody who was now, uh, insulted and resentful towards that topic and that woman. I mean, I still remember, I can picture her in my face. I couldn't believe that she did this, uh, in front of everybody without any expectations. You know, I was just sort of a bumbling college student didn't care about anything, you know, just kind of working my way through. I knew what I needed to do women in other cultures class, I was probably asleep at the wheel, calls me up and actually belittles me like muscle group by muscle group. And I'm pretty sure she was like touching me, like touch the shoulders, look at the, look at the shoulders and all this stuff and like condescending and then went over to the woman and did it to her. Right. Look how small she is. Look how tiny her shoulders are. Look at her hips. Right? A little bit bigger for birthing and all that, like in front of the whole class.

Speaker 3: 1:58:56

And then, and then talked about what a toxic male I was. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:59:00

I don't know what you know, don't know. No, I didn't pay for that education, but all right. Want to know, says, had a CRT rally in Portland last Saturday, five teachers have kids scream at, teach the turtle T I'm sorry. Teach the truth about 20 bystanders. Watched it numerous times. Uh, mommy's protesting carrying signs in front of schools. Never covered it. All those crowds, 20 to 50 people, a lot at the schools, the CRT rally, five teachers have kids scream, teach the truth. 20 bystanders watched it. Yeah. Teachers or parents are not happy about this. Todd trout says, this is just awful. No professor should ever demean someone like that. If that happened to my son, I would have been, I would have to be restrained from saying something. Yeah.

Speaker 3: 1:59:39

Um, I, I sorta, I feel that same way. I, I tend not to think that

Speaker 1: 1:59:45

Too much of an overreaction Arie or somebody that just gets mad about,

Speaker 3: 1:59:48

You know, not good stuff. But I mean,

Speaker 1: 1:59:50

If, if a professor is sort of scolding your kid in front of a classroom, I think that is a problem. We have Aidan test as that professor is a moron. Yes. That was a performance with a captive student who would not express his opinion if he wanted to, no matter what he said, he was captive to however that professor wanted to frame this charade. Right, exactly. Right. Yeah. The professor knew what he was doing. You could, when I see professors like that, it always reminds me of somebody who is, is, is doing more of a performance. Right. It's more about them. That's why I said kind of like a narcissist, right. Almost narcissistic. He wants to be the center of attention. He's done that little shtick, you know, a hundred times he's he's dealing with, with college students who are not particularly well-equipped to go head to head with him in an intellectual.

Speaker 3: 2:00:37

Okay. These are college kids. He has a, a major advantage. So it would be like bringing up

Speaker 1: 2:00:46

Like an eight year old in a karate competition and saying, Rob, go, go ahead. Now, you, you, you

Speaker 3: 2:00:51

Eight year old. Let's see how this goes. I probably

Speaker 1: 2:00:55

Would win. Probably. I dunno. I dunno what the eight year old is, but

Speaker 3: 2:00:57

Probably okay. So it's like this professor doing that and then sort of patting him

Speaker 1: 2:01:03

On the back for making some very progressive points about how everything is not equal, which I don't was anybody saying that things are equal. Like you're, you're, you're making an argument on a premise and nobody's agreeing with you on we all like, you know, we all know that we have different circumstances in life. Nobody's trying to argue that point. So why are you trying to make that point? Okay. Boxy punk chick says didn't Harvard, Penn state in many other universities have lawsuits for discrimination, which actually ended up creating discrimination. It has allowed many people who were a minority with low test scores, getting classes while the other kids who had the qualifications are forced to give their seats up sometimes creates discrimination. Yeah. Cause it's, I think it's much more actually currently sort of trending towards active discrimination. It's not even about, you know, it's, it's sort of, if you are not having a conversation about discrimination again, about racism, if you're not talking about race, if you're engaged in anything with a person of a different race, and you're not actively considering race as a variable in that equation, then you are a racist. That's the whole concept of systemic, racist. Everything has racism sort of inherently baked into the system.

Speaker 3: 2:02:12

So if you are not actively addressing racism, then you are acting

Speaker 1: 2:02:17

Totally being racist. The only way to, to address your own inherent racism is by

Speaker 3: 2:02:22

Calling it out by

Speaker 1: 2:02:24

Making sure that you're aware of it so that you can actively act against it. Because as we know from the medical doctor, Dr. Moss says that we're parasitic. I mean, me, I don't know. I don't know about everybody else, but me personally, as a white person, parasitic malignant condition that I have. So if, if that's the only way that we can have a conversation, we really can't have a conversation. Can we? And this professor knows that he has an unfair advantage and he did that. Not for the student's education. He did that for his own glory. He wants to grow his YouTube channel and wants to make himself to be the social justice warrior. And in the meantime, he's going to be wrecking the minds of kids who are all going to be delegated this perverse incentive structure. That's going to be programmed into their brain. That the only way that they can succeed, succeed in America

Speaker 3: 2:03:08

Is if they are the ultimate victim so that they can get the equity

Speaker 1: 2:03:13

They're being promised by this professor and all of these politicians who will never, ever be able to make due on that promise,

Speaker 3: 2:03:19

Are you kidding me? They're going to make equitable

Speaker 1: 2:03:22

Equity across this country will never happen. So if, if there's a whole contingency of college students who are saying that, oh, we're, you know, we're entitled to equity. And we're entitled to certain things in life because of our demographic condition, as we were burst into this country and we expect society to give that to us, they're going to be waiting for some time. Okay, don't hold your breath on that. It's not because I don't want people to have, you know, good things or, or what's, what's fair to them. It's because it's not humanly possible at least now to make sure that everybody is equal on everything. So what do we do as a society if we can't achieve that, if we can't centrally plan so that our government can make sure that everybody gets the same number of items all the time, right? Which is, which is communism. We've tried it in our country. We try in our,

Speaker 3: 2:04:06

And our world has never worked out well. They're talking about, you know, bringing that back now and it's not possible. It doesn't work. So if you're, if you're

Speaker 1: 2:04:18

Training students to operate in that system, they're going to be at a serious disadvantage. And they're going to recognize it soon that professor he's just, you know, giving those speeches for his own vanity, his own glory. Those kids now are the ones who are ultimately going to suffer. All right. So we've got doodle doing the house says, so what about the a six, 10 black? He gets drafted into the NBA and makes millions over the white kid who was five, nine, also a talented basketball player, but who will never be drafted, may end up working at a boring, low paying job. Why don't we accuse the NBA of being racist. Then that clip you showed at that professor was just proof that poison and indoctrination is what is being taught in our universities. Yeah. And that was just two minutes, right? That guy has a whole toll channel with all of the classes on there. So I'm sure you can find a lot more disgusting concepts in there now. Right? We all have different things that, that we have in life. We have different privileges. You can have male privilege, you can have female privilege. You can have, uh, children privilege, adult privilege, all sorts of privileges. So if we want to start having that conversation, I guess then if that's the standard to apply, maybe they should apply it equally, but that's not the point. The point is not to engage in that garbage conversation because it's not useful. And it's a lose lose proposition. It's very, very effective because it's very circular. Anytime you try to put up your defenses to rebut any critical race theory, arguments, they use one of their little Jedi mind tricks to call it white privilege or white flight or white fragility or whatever. You don't have the stones to deal with your own racism and they can win every argument that way. So it's, in my opinion, is I'm worth really, really dealing with them. You know, that professor I'm to teach his class, give the students the choice. If, if the state is going to subsidize college education, give that as a voucher to those students. And let's let, let's let the schools compete. I would love to see a school for entrepreneurship, for financial literacy, for people to go out there and sort of learn a trade, right? To go, to go do something meaningful, not sit in these classrooms. Like I did learning about women and other cultures while some lunatic professor scolds and critiques my entire body from top to bottom and then flips around and does it to the girl standing right next to me, not appropriate, not a good education. Didn't get anything out of that. But here we are still here. Now it's getting progressively worse based on what I'm seeing out here on a, on some of these news stories, but we'll see where it goes. All right. Great questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com really appreciate all your support. That's our community, where we're so slowly brick by brick, building a new supply chain away from big tech. We're going more towards a new ecosystems that are not beholden to some of the old power structures that exist. And I also want to invite you to take a look at my gum road. This is what my, uh, my new sort of portal for some of the new offerings that I have out there. Law enforcement interaction training was something we did this past weekend. It was a ton of fun. We had an actual officer who was on there, who a retired officer who sort of weighed in on the training. So you can download that if you're a local supporter, make sure you check locals before you purchase anything. There's some good stuff over there. Otherwise this one's 19 bucks. Existing systems is my personal productivity system. If you're a lawyer, check out the Guler method. If you're an attorney or somebody who's a legal professional, check those out, I would really appreciate a follow. If you check out gumroad.com/robert ruler, or click this QR code, drop an email in there and you'll get updates. I've got a lot of other courses that I'm working on. I've got all the chapters of the book that I wrote. I've got a mitigation pro, uh, course that I want to put together. I've got a Bitcoin and crypto course that I want to put together for my friends and family. So to sort of help them get inclined to more of a, of a, sort of a decentralized independent financial system. So got a lot of stuff. I really appreciate a follow over there and a review. If you've checked out any of the content and you liked it, I would love a five star review from you. We also have our law firm, which is where we are really making a difference in people's lives. We talk a lot here on the channel about politics. We have fun. We kind of joke. Sometimes we get serious and we try to learn something every day and experiment with some of the concepts that are being kicked around out there. But every day at our firm, we have boots on the ground. We're doing the hard work in and out of the court systems. We love to help good people facing criminal charges. And so if you happen to know anybody that needs some help have them give us a call. The phone number down there for a free case. Evaluation is 4, 8 0 7 8 7 0 3 9 4. They can click that QR code and of course, check out our website. Want to thank everybody who came over to locals. Number one we got cheated will is here at cheese will not cheese wheel cheese will welcome. Well, appreciate you in here. Great questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com, which is our community platform down here. Want to, well, thank you. All of you. Great questions had a lot of fun today. Some, some very interesting topics, a little bit of heavy lifting around these parts, but I think it was well worth it. If you do subscribe over at locals, you can get some pretty good stuff. Free copy of my book down there in the bottom left beginning to winning it is a free PDF. You can download. You also get a copy of the slides. If you want to download those copy of my impeachment party templates, my existence system document is available over at locals. You can also buy the course for$8 and 88 cents at Gumroad. We share links throughout the day. There's a lot of great people over there. We have a monthly meetup pin this on your calendar, June 26th. So if you're a member at locals, we're going to get together, hang out for about an hour, do some live Q and a with everybody there we did this last time. I tried to have sort of a framework and a structure for it. Didn't work out real well, but we are going to just do some Q and a. So if you have some questions that you want to ask of the show, if you have some comments, if you have anything that you want to nudge the show in a different direction, that's a good time to do that. We're going to do it. Live cameras are optional on or off. If you want June 26, 7 to 8:00 PM Eastern time. And that is it. My friends, as I already mentioned, I'm a criminal defense lawyer at the RNR law group. So we would love a referral. If you know anybody in our state that needs some help, we offer free case evaluations. And that is it for me. My friend's been a long show, but I really enjoyed it. Thank you for all your comments, your contributions to the program. You make things live and, uh, and fun. And I do appreciate it. So we're going to be back here. Same time, same place tomorrow for yet another show 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on that east coast for that one, Florida man out there, everybody else stay well. Be well, be healthy, have a nice dinner. And I will see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.