I’m Daring YouTube To Kick Me Off YouTube For This ~ Ep. 1411 ~ The Dan Bongino Show

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode in his Show Notes (a.k.a. Newsletter!):

In this episode, I dare the tyrants at YouTube to kick me off their platform for covering alleged election fraud. I also cover the stunning lawsuit out of Texas which could upend the 2020 election. Finally, I discuss the pending collapse of this major American city and the obvious reason why.

The takeaways from this episode are huge, but very simple to understand.  Dan charged right out of the chute today, with commentary about youtube.com, or as Dan's listeners know, he calls it "ScrewTube."  Turns out that ScrewTube, just today, announced a policy that said, as reported by CNBC, that "More than a month after the election, YouTube decides to crack down on misinformation on results."  Dan's attitude about that is stunning; daring, and practically begging, that ScrewTube ban him.  As you would assume, that would hurt ScrewTube, and bring many more people to Dan's Rumble.com account.

Yes, Dan definitely gets it.  There is definitely a free speech issue. ScrewTube likes to decide what you can't post, or what you can't watch.  Like the good old Soviet Union, and it has been heading that way for quite awhile.  Yes, I was banned from youtube about a decade ago.  It kind of lead to a problem for my blogs here.  Many of the videos I had embedded were no longer able to be viewed, and many of them were embedded in my blogs.  Ouch.  And, of course, I've posted many of Dan's episodes in this blog page, as embedded videos.  Yep, you guessed it, those embedded videos show as unavailable when somebody is banned, or leaves youtube.  Whether or not Dan and his crew repost all of those episodes from youtube over to Rumble.com, I do not know, but I do know what the enormous effort that it would take, for them, and also for me to edit my posts to use the Rumble videos if they become available for the older episodes.  But, Dan or Paula, if you are reading this post, I will stand with you however it goes with ScrewTube.   

One thing, I know, is that there was nothing that Dan Bongino said today about the election results that could be determined to be misinformation.  None of Dan's episodes since November 4, 2020, could be said to be misinformation about the election results.  In fact, the Fake News media was the actual perpetrator of the misinformation campaign, all for the benefit of the Demonicrat opponents to President Trump.  

Like today, when Dan gave his remarks about the Texas lawsuit against several other states, that has to go to the Supreme Court.  And now, a bunch of other states have joined in that lawsuit with Texas.  What are you going to do, Screwtube, say that the lawsuit must have been filed in another universe?  Hmm, I wonder.  Because, that is a fact, and Dan stated nothing in the way of misinformation about that lawsuit.  In a big way, that is so much more honest information that Dan gave, in contrast to the lying mainstream Fake News media, who has been lying by omission since the election, or since Arizona was called by the once-lovable Fox News.

It would be a great disservice to Dan for me to say any more about this episode, as he has such a wonderful way of explaining things.  He has a definite knack for knowing how to provide information while keeping it interesting, and very humorous at times.  I like that.  And it is a quality that is somewhat rare, at times... Very rare when it is a liberal that is speaking.  Huh!  Explains why so many of my college professors were so boring to listen to!  

Enjoy the episode!  

PS: I'm really glad that I finally got to where I could use the Rumble embedding code for Dan's episodes, and keep ScrewTube off of this page!

Because I know that Dan Bongino would prefer that I embed the Rumble.com video here, I am now doing that! It finally came to me how to do it, and I am very pleased, because it doesn't require me to use the JavaScript code to do it! So, when you are watching, you will not be seeing it via youtube.com again. Nope, not here. Ever!  No more screwtube embedded video here! Forevs! So, it's now RUMBLE all the way, Dan.  For Dan's show page on Rumble.com, click here.

Be sure to see the SHOW NOTES for Episode 1411 for related news stories.

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information.

Full Interview with President Trump ~ Ep. 1350 ~ The Dan Bongino Show®

From the Dan Bongino Show's description of this episode in his Show Notes (a.k.a. Newsletter!):

In this episode, I welcome back President Donald J. Trump to the show. He answers questions about the troubling calls from leftists for a “street fight” after the election, social media censorship of his account, his election chances, and on Biden’s lies about tax hikes and defunding the police.

Yes, elections matter! 

In just 36 days, the fate of this country will be at stake.

But, if you didn't know that, I am not sure what to tell you.  I was in darkness for 13 days, and without the internet and cable TV for 36 days, following the Iowa Derecho, and I still found the way to stay on top of things: a battery-powered radio.  And of course, some awesome radio talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, Simon Conway, JoePags (Pagliarulo) and others, all helped me stay informed.  

Until you go without electricity and your connection via the internet to the world, you may not fully appreciate the information that you have available to you.  When I went without the information that I was normally able to soak in, it magnified my appreciation for what we are able to access when everything is working as it should be. 

So, it is going to be up to you to be informed in 36 days.  Or before you vote.  Yes, this country is going to be at stake; please be informed.

 

Be sure to see the

SHOW NOTES for Episode 1350

Looking for news? The Bongino Report brings you the top conservative and libertarian news stories of the day, aggregated in an easy to read format to assist the public in getting accurate information.

The Solution to Mass Shootings, Crime, and Your Own Personal Struggles - JJ McNown - Video

I learned about JJ McNown on Twitter. His handle there is @jjmcnown. I've met a lot of pretty cool people over on Twitter. There is a ground swell of people that feel what I feel.

It isn't the proverbial "fad" like some on the left would try to tell you. It isn't a bunch of people that jumped on a bandwagon because it was the cool thing to do - at the moment. No, heck no! It is because a bunch of people found out that there were a bunch of people that felt the same way that a bunch of people felt - which was, this country is falling apart because of a certain mindset in the "political class" known as the Left...

Okay, enough of my rant. Just check these things out. I know you are busy. I know it's hard to keep up on everything, always so much to do. However, I say that with emphasis, I'm about to make my own announcement soon, on a way we can help you stay informed while being so busy with life.

VIDEO: The Judge that really cares about troubled kids

The Judge that really cares about troubled kids gives them a straight-up talking to in her courtroom that brings them to...

Posted by Johnny2k's America on Friday, April 8, 2016

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

What Happened to Chicago’s Murder Rate After Illinois Upheld Concealed Carry and Why it Matters ~ By Mike Miller

While statistics vary and people on both sides of the gun debate differ on whether concealed carry laws help to prevent gun crime, this thing is certain: If my loved ones or I were under attack, I would want the capability to stop the attackers. Dead in their tracks, if necessary. Wouldn’t you?

Right now, it looks like great news for advocates of the 2nd Amendment. However, a word of warning, it may be too early to celebrate. From Jason Howerton at TheBlaze:

The more telling statistics will be revealed as 2014 marches on. Still, as always, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy called the drop in crime a “trend.” He attributed the drop to the “talent level of individuals” on the police force, “intelligent policing strategies” and other programs. He did not mention the concealed carry law.

Nope, no credit for the new Illinois concealed carry law in that statement! Of course, McCarthy would want to take credit for the drop in crime! This should not be a surprise to anyone.

As you will also read in this column (see below), "...police said more than 1,300 illegal guns were recovered in the last three months." While the anti-gun liberals will also give that statistic credit for the drop in crime rates in Chicago, there is no way to know what it means without further information. But don't worry, the liberal mainstream media are still likely to mention it anyway.

And in the mean time, it doesn't sound like the military leaders believe that there should be concealed carry on military bases, even when that policy could prevent tragedies like the second Fort Hood shooting in less than five years.  Just keep in mind who their boss is: Yep, it's the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama.  We could see that one coming, right? Just sayin'...

What Happened to Chicago’s Murder Rate After Illinois Upheld Concealed Carry and Why it Matters

By Mike Miller

April 4, 2014

From Independent Journal Review

In July of 2013, Illinois became the last state in the union to enact a concealed carry law. In January of this year, the state began accepting applications for permits. This week, Chicago police announced that the city’s first quarter murder rate was the lowest since 1958.

Via ABC-affiliate Eye Witness News in the Windy City:

• The first three months of the year saw 6 fewer murders than the same time frame in 2013–a 9 percent drop–and 55 fewer murders than 2012, according to a statement from Chicago Police.

• There were 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims, drops of 26 and 29 percent respectively, according to police statistics.

• Compared to the first quarter of 2012, there have been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims. Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year, and police said more than 1,300 illegal guns were recovered in the last three months.

Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell. Although, I doubt that the anti-gun crowd is celebrating the good news.

~~~ READ MORE on Independent Journal Review ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Keeping cops honest ~ By Phil Elmore

In Maryland, a man faces a staggering 16 years in prison after he posted a YouTube video of his interaction with a state trooper. The trooper, driving an unmarked car (in other words, not driving an obvious law-enforcement vehicle) and not wearing a uniform, cut in front of Anthony Graber (who is a Maryland Air National Guard sergeant), brandished a gun and yelled at Graber – all before identifying himself as a police officer.

Motorcycle traffic violation - Cop pulls out gun

Video provided by nikotyc

Phil Elmore brings up the rising number of state and local governments that are making the video taping of authorities - mainly police officers in the process of making an arrest - illegal. This opens up a number of questions. Will elected officials like Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) finally decide that they no longer want to be seen by the world on youtube? I am sure that Rep. Pete Stark thinks that could be done, being that he thinks the federal government can do anything it wants to:

Rep. Pete Stark at Town Hall Meeting in California

Video provided by MrOutarsingh

The Chicago Tribune asks, "Police record citizens. Why not the other way around?"

But then, sometimes when the police do get a good dash cam video, it is shared with the world and goes viral:

Full Length - Hawkeye OL Josh Koeppel Crash

Video provided by HawkeyeHitter

The point is, Big Brother has surveillance of We the People in place to keep an eye on us. Should we be restricted from being able to keep an eye on the police or any other public official? As long as people with video cams are not interfering with official police actions, there should be absolutely NO restrictions. I consider it a First Amendment right. It is the freedom of the press that has kept the government (supposedly) in line.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We must have the ability to continue to monitor those in authority. Trying to use "wiretapping laws" as an excuse to prohibit the video camera from recording an incident is a big stretch, and it is doubtful that it would be considered Constitutional if tested in court. Just sayin'...

To preserve what remains of our free society, videotaping those in power when they operate in public (or in our homes) must be legal. It is the most effective way to help prevent abuses of power that would otherwise go unseen and unpunished. The danger presented to law-enforcement officers' safety, or to their efficacy as agents of our government, is negligible, in my opinion. The loss to every one of us should we give up the right to record police does far greater damage to society and to the individuals it comprises.

While I would never adopt the leftist, authoritarian attitude that, "If you've got nothing to hide you should welcome Big Brother looking over your shoulder for your own good," this isn't about public surveillance of free citizens. It's about providing a check on the otherwise unbridled power of law enforcement officers to abuse their considerable discretion when nobody is looking. It's about keeping honest the men and women who are empowered to exercise authority – and force in the name of authority – over their fellow free citizens. It's about watching the watchmen through the unblinking and unbiased eye of a camera lens.

Keeping cops honest

By Phil Elmore

Posted: September 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Recently, I watched an online "viral" video in which a protester holding an "Impeach Obama" sign was roughed up by security personnel at a state fair. While the protester certainly was manhandled, the force used might or might not have been justified. I pictured a jury at the man's trial watching the video as evidence. Did the man's actions warrant the force he received? Did he give the security officers provocation? What about the context for the incident? And what do the security people have to say about it all – the people who, when they saw they were being videotaped, asked the cameraman to shut off his machine?

To his credit, that cameraman's answer was an immediate and emphatic "No." He was not going to be bullied into letting those in authority do whatever they liked behind metaphorical closed doors. What that cameraman may not have thought to ask himself, however, is this: Could he be charged with a crime for recording the protester's arrest? Just what are the consequences for filming someone in public – specifically, for filming a police officer in public?

As the technology to record video becomes ever more accessible and less expensive, the prevalence of handheld video cameras (often in the form of wireless phones) has increased dramatically. Public surveillance by our government has increased, too, and we as Americans must contend with the shadow of Big Brother looming larger over us with each passing day. The good thing about video, however, is that it makes no judgments, provided it is not edited in bad faith or filmed from a compromising angle. A video of an incident tells the truth about what happened more accurately than any eyewitness can relate. So why are more and more law enforcement and government officials trying to make criminals of citizens who record encounters with police?

The Chicago Tribune asks, "Police record citizens. Why not the other way around?" The Tribune story points out that Chicago has one of the largest networks of surveillance cameras in the country. In Illinois, however, it's illegal to record the police – even if you're trying to gather evidence of police wrongdoing. If you try it, you could be arrested and charged with a felony. This is because in Illinois both parties must consent to the recording of a conversation ... unless one of those parties is a police officer.

READ FULL STORY

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Sarah Palin's fuzzy on pot ~ By Joseph Farah

I have to give this round to Joseph Farah. In fact, he took Sarah Palin to the woodshed on this one. Joseph is most definitely right: laws should either be enforced or scrapped. Joseph wrote, "Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped."

That seems to be plain old common sense, don't you think? Isn't this like the Federal laws against illegal immigration that aren't being enforced? And isn't that why Arizona passed SB 1070 because the Federal government isn't enforcing the existing immigration laws, which was endangering the citizens of Arizona? When laws are being violated, it sends a bad message when the government seems to look the other way. Just sayin'...

The worst possible idea is to keep marijuana illegal and treat it like it is legal.

It makes no sense, it reduces respect for the law and it promotes tolerance for law-breaking.

There is simply no room for mushy, muddle-headed, lukewarm solutions like Sarah Palin has offered. It sounds good. But it's not. We should be hot or cold on this issue – either enforce laws aggressively or scrap them altogether.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: June 25, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Sarah Palin says she doesn't think marijuana should be legalized, but she also doesn't think cops should aggressively enforce laws against it.

Sarah Palin

"If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society," she said, characterizing pot-smoking as "a, relatively speaking, minimal problem we have in the country."

On the surface, what Sarah Palin says is likely to resonate with most Americans. Unfortunately, she is exactly wrong in her prescription for more tolerance of marijuana.

There are several problems with what she proposes, which is essentially the status quo policy in most states right now.

First, we should not have laws on the books if we do not intend to enforce them uniformly and aggressively. Selective enforcement is not fair and equitable. Some people get punished for a crime, others do not. It makes no sense. Either the laws on the books are important, or they are not. If they are not, they should be scrapped.

Second, police are not routinely beating down the doors of law-abiding homeowners because they are quietly smoking pot in their living rooms. That's not how police encounter pot smokers. Generally speaking, police find pot when they are do traffic stops. Smoking pot while driving is hazardous not only to those smoking it, but everyone else on the road. Just as drunk driving is considered a very serious crime throughout America, so should be the smoking of pot while driving – or even the possession of it. If someone is driving and has pot on them, isn't this the equivalent of alcohol open-container violations?

Third, marijuana is also often found on those arrested for other crimes – especially drug crimes. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Marijuana is a major product of some of the largest and most dangerous organized crime syndicates in America and around the world. These mobsters kill people, rape people, torture people, enslave people. There's nothing petty about that kind of criminal activity, and marijuana keeps these mobsters in business.

I believe we should either legalize marijuana as a controlled substance or enforce laws against its use and possession with vigor. I'll tell you why.

I'm not a big fan of Rudy Giuliani as a national political figure, but he was probably the best mayor of New York since Fiorella LaGuardia. Why? Because he did such a good job making New York safe. Do you know how he did it? He aggressively enforced even the most "minor" infractions of the law – making New York a city that did not tolerate criminal activity. For instance, he attacked graffiti in two ways – tough enforcement against the vandals and quick removal.

The theory behind this policy was that entire neighborhoods previously marred by graffiti would no longer look like bastions and sanctuaries for criminal activity. Entire neighborhoods were reclaimed by the law-abiding.

What followed was remarkable:

• murders down
• armed robberies down
• break-ins down
• prostitution down
• muggings down

Across the board, crime plummeted in New York under Giuliani's attack on the most "minor" criminal infractions.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Guns save lives ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel used to go along with his mainstream media colleagues, he now admits, that guns were evil. But that has changed. (He didn't happen to say when his opinion changed, though. Was it before or after he left ABC to go work for Fox Business News?) He now believes that guns reduce crime because criminals do not know when their victim may be packing heat. And of course, we realize, he now has it right. Keep in mind that many of the mass shootings, like at Virginia Tech, are in gun-free zones. That should tell the anti-gun people something, wouldn't you think? Just sayin'...

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. McDonald v. Chicago is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

By John Stossel

Posted: June 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders are evil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means – hold onto your seat – less crime.

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (Twenty more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law at the time did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

When the cops seize your stuff ~ By John Stossel

John Stossel writes about the ability of the police to be able seize property when used in the commission of a crime. Is it fair? Wait until you hear what the police do with the property!

This is serious, folks. The police can seize your property if they think it was used in a crime. If you want it back, you must prove it was not used criminally. The burden of proof is on you. This reverses a centuries-old safeguard in Anglo-American law against arbitrary government power.

The feds do this, too. In 1986, the Justice Department made $94 million on forfeitures. Today, its forfeiture fund has more than a billion in it.

By John Stossel

Posted: May 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

In America, we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Life, liberty and property can't be taken from you unless you're convicted of a crime.

Your life and liberty may still be safe, but have you ever gone to a government surplus auction? Consumer reporters like me tell people, correctly, that they are great places to find bargains. People can buy bikes for $10, cars for $500.

But where did the government get that stuff?

Some is abandoned property.

But some I would just call loot. The cops grabbed it.

Zaher El-Ali has repaired and sold cars in Houston for 30 years. One day, he sold a truck to a man on credit. Ali was holding the title to the car until he was paid, but before he got his money the buyer was arrested for drunk driving. The cops then seized Ali's truck and kept it, planning to sell it.

Ali can't believe it.

"I own that truck. That truck has done nothing."

The police say they can keep it under forfeiture law because the person driving the car that day broke the law. It doesn't matter that the driver wasn't the owner. It's as if the truck committed the crime.

"I have never seen a truck drive," Ali said. "I don't think it's the fault of the truck. And they know better."

Something has gone wrong when the police can seize the property of innocent people.

"Under this bizarre legal fiction called civil forfeiture, the government can take your property, including your home, your car, your cash, regardless of whether or not you are convicted of a crime. It's led to horrible abuses," says Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, the libertarian law firm.

Bullock suggests the authorities are not just disinterested enforcers of the law.

"One of the main reasons they do this and why they love civil forfeiture is because in Texas and over 40 states and at the federal level, police and prosecutors get to keep all or most of the property that they seize for their own use," he said. "So they can use it to improve their offices, buy better equipment."

Obviously, that creates a big temptation to take stuff.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Who is for Gun Control in America?

It wasn't long ago that Doug Powers wrote about the gun control in India, and how it became so easy for terrorists to gun down so many people. So, just how fast can you even dial 9-1-1? And what happens if you get voice mail when you call 9-1-1, in desperate need for emergency assistance? And will you even have time to say a prayer?

read more | digg story