 We hear a lot about the sacred right to abortion, which is never specifically spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, while in reality the most sacred right is free speech. That's why it's the First Amendment. You couldn't even demand a right to abortion without free speech. Yet this right is under heavy assault by the very people that should be protecting it. Listen to Democrat Amy Klobuchar from Sunday on MSNBC's Meet the Press, hosted by Chuck Todd, a lifelong Democrat whose wife makes millions working with the Democrat Party. You can amend it and focus on certain kinds of speech misinformation, disinformation, and all you're saying is we know people are going to put stuff on your alleged town square, which has become really a communications company. Your network, other news organizations have limits in place and standards. Look, free speech is over if Amy Klobuchar, the media, the government, or anyone else gets to police misinformation or disinformation. They can't even define what that is. We've seen over and over again what happens when the government appoints people to police free speech. You end up with people like Nina Jankiewicz and organizations like CSIA, which were tasked with doing the government's otherwise illegal censorship with guys like Chris Krebs leading the way. That's where we need the platform to be more transparent and how their algorithms work, how engagement works, so that outside security experts and researchers can dig in and hold them accountable. So is Donald Trump a domestic threat? There is disinformation that he is spreading. The Hunter Biden laptop, that was remarkably similar to a hack and leak operation from 2016. It was just in a different model. It is well established at this point that the media is corrupt, is partisan, and is likely controlled by the CIA and FBI. They've spread so many fake stories and disinformation, which always conveniently cuts against the Democrats' political opponents and the media's critics. So it's nothing new. They should have no hand whatsoever in policing free speech. And if they do have a hand in it, then you know it's a threat to free speech. But holy shit, if this isn't a great example of exactly why that is the case. Somehow, I'm astounded to hear this on MSNBC, a day after multiple people called for the policing of speech on their shows. Yes, I mean, we can't forget that this is a strain in the American character and American history. And I think it was not only a failure of imagination, it was a failure to reckon with history. And the fact that the military was so slow to react, on the one hand, I commend that. I also agree it's a problem of optics of having armed national guard troops going into the Capitol. Wait, no, sorry. I'm going to have to quickly stop and interject here. The fact that the Capitol wasn't totally blocked off in the first place is suspect, considering that it had been blocked off before during Democrat riots at Trump's inauguration. They knew it was coming and purposely allowed them to come in. This guy is a lying prick who's trying to deflect from that fact. But it's more than a problem of optics when when Capitol officers are being killed and wrong, wrong, wrong. Exactly. Zero officers died on that day. None. One officer died of natural causes the next day, with the autopsy showing no blunt force trauma, which conflicted with earlier media lies that Brian Sicknick had been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Making matters worse, The New York Times has quietly retracted its story about the death of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick on January 8th. The Times wrote that Sicknick died from brain injuries that he, quote, sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher. But now medical experts are saying that's not true. And the paper is backpedaling, admitting that it's possible he was never even hit at all. All they do is lie, while at the same time demanding that their party have the power to police disinformation, which they're experts at spreading. It's just a preview of what the future will be like if they get their way. They will be able to say whatever they want to, free of accountability, while your speech will be severely limited if it exists at all. Did you find this video informative? Help me debunk the media's lies by hitting that like button, sharing this video, and leaving a comment to continue the discussion. Thanks a lot, I'll see you all in the next one.