Do You have "Excessive Freedoms"? The Left says you do. I'm going to EXPOSE their liberal plan to take your rights and give you the knowledge to combat them! You can view the video above, or read below, or view larger version directly on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiSapuxjZRc&t=1736s
Do you have "excess freedoms"? The left says you do. I'm going to expose how the left's gonna steal your freedoms!
Alright ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to PRC TV. I'm your host, Crash Gilliam; always striving to bring you the truth at least as I see it.
Today we're gonna be diving into "The View" video segment on Facebook, social media, and censorship. But, we're actually not going to be talking about those issues. What I want to get into today is how they expose the liberal plan to take our constitutional freedoms and this is really important. I know a lot of you say, "Oh man, Crash, we don't watch "The View"... this is the whole reason we don't watch the view", but a lot of people do, and it's important, I think, to understand the liberal mind, and what their game plan is. Anna Navarro in particular in this clip really lays out what the plan is, and there's a nuance in here that I want you to understand because it's very very important!
So, let's get to it! We're gonna go over here to Patriot Resource Center on our YouTube channel, and we're gonna pull up this View video that I sent out to subscribers a couple of days ago. I wanted to let you know right quick too; that we also do have a Bitchute Channel. A lot of people don't know about this site, but it's a YouTube like site with a little bit more freedom, and there you can see the address (Click link above). You can also SUBSCRIBE to Patriot Resource Center.com, and we'll make sure you get the links to both of these channels as well. But, you can see they've got a little more graphic stuff on here. It's freedom of speech kind of stuff. It's things that I feel like those people that need to see it should be able to see it, but of course you don't have to see it, so it's completely/entirely up to you. I will be posting other stuff on here as well, but just wanted to let you know that there are some things that YouTube just won't let us put on, and so we use Bitchute. So,please go over there and support them and what they're doing. They are fighting the good fight, and I'll get into them later when we talk about censorship because they're involved too.
Let's get back over here to our YouTube channel; and now we'll get this"View" up that I posted a couple of days earlier.
"The View" Segment:
"Facebook promised to combat hate speech yes they banned controversial figures like Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yannopolis from the site. Nothing I want to hear from any of them, but does this violate their First Amendment rights, as well I want to know cuz they're not allowed now to spew their hatred on any Facebook page."
"No, because Facebook is a private company so the First Amendment doesn't apply to
Whaaaaaat? So, Sunny Hostin is saying that because facebook is a private company they're not subject to the First Amendment, and they can say whatever they want. Anybody notice anything wrong with that statement?
"Yeah, whatever you want. Yeah you can you can have massacres live on Facebook. What happened in New Zealand on Facebook...."
"Yeah, but Facebook now has taken the tack that because they're a private company and they can monitor their own content they've decided to to do..."
She is laying out the idea that the First Amendment is not a protection, but rather a regulation, or law, of some sort some sort of governance, instead of a protection. Right out of the gate here they get it completely wrong. Facebook is a corporation, and as a corporation they have every individual right that you have. They have a right not to do business with certain people or to enter into contracts, or not enter into contracts, with whomever they want; and that's really kind of what gives them the right to ban certain people. Now, we get into a little bit more of that later, but essentially, they must apply that equally though. They're going to be in trouble, but the point here is, right out of the gate... see your First Amendment isn't a protection. She says they are not subject to the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not apply to them, so they can say whatever they want. They've turned our First Amendment right, our First Amendment protection, into some sort of an ordinance, or law... a governance... a restriction.
"...to do this, and you know I I disagree certainly with all those though the platforms that those people have that have been banned, have but it just does make me feel uncomfortable that you have sort of this private organization being able to take away the speech of private individuals. There's just something about it that makes me makes the lawyer in me extremely uncomfortable."
"I have no issue with it at all. I want them shut down. I want them silenced. I want them muted. I think they are horrible for our society. And look, at the First Amendment argument is very powerful, and it is something that... that's so unique to America, but it's not unlimited. It's not unrestricted.
You know, in law school you all learn about the screaming fire in a crowded theater, right? If it's something that endangers people, if it's something that's going to end up hurting people, there are restrictions that can be imposed.I think the hate speech.... that I think we are seeing how much hateful rhetoric is triggering crazy people to do horrible things, and we need to figure out how to stop it. At the end of the day, this is gonna get litigated in court. Somebody's gonna..."
Okay, so right there... there it is. [She's] Talking about hate. She wants it all off. She wants them thrown under the bus, thrown away, tossed out. So, clearly she is not a big proponent of First Amendment rights. She claims to be a conservative, and she's one of those conservatives like McCain is, who the left uses. They bring them on to their shows, and they're as leftist as any of the other people in the show. But, the whole idea if even using Navarro/ McCain, is to redefine the middle themselves.
See, normally the middle of the voting population was determined by the far left and the far right creating that Center, that middle. That middle middle road were the majority of the people live. Well, you see what they've done now; they've excluded the right, certainly the far right, and now they're redefining the middle by only using liberals. Now, she may be a little less liberal than Joy, but she's still a liberal. So now, they want people to see Navarro as this conservative. She clearly isn't and by doing that, it redefines the middle, and it makes their viewers think "okay, I'm in the middle... I'm not an extremist". So yeah, that's the whole point of even using them to begin with.
Now, Anna Navarro is a very intelligent well-educated attorney; well traveled around the world, so it it makes me wonder is this something that she's just that ignorant about, or is she intentionally trying to mislead people, and, I'm just not quite sure which, but as she says, "Hey even all the law schools teach this", so she's already trying to bump up her credibility on the issue by saying that, "Well, everybody's taught this in law school"... and the problem is, I think, they are. These new law schools... that's what they want; new attorneys to believe. They want new judges to believe this. They want you to believe that your rights can be regulated. To even get to that sort of an ideology you have to come from the basis that the government provides these rights to you like a driver's license.
"It should be the same, like, I definitely think there should be the same standard that you hold with someone a book, someone checks out from the library."
"But, it's not unlimited. It's not unrestricted, you know. In...in law school, you all learn about the screaming fire in a crowded room, right? If it's something that any dangers people... if it's something that's going to end up hurting people, there are restrictions like..."
Alright, there we go. Right there ladies and gentlemen, that is how liberals they're gonna steal your freedoms or they're in the process of stealing your freedoms. Now, I know everybody is saying, "Crash, wait a second. Everybody knows you can't run into a crowded room and yell fire. Everybody knows it's against the law, Well, it's not, but that's their argument. That's the entire basis the left uses to control, to regulate, to take your freedoms away from you. In this nuance, in constitutional law, is what I want to explain to you, because we've all heard it, and they beat us over the head with it every day; whether it's on TV, the media, or whether you're having a discussion with a liberal, and this is what I want to arm you with...this information, because it is so critical to the future of the Republic, the very foundations of our freedom.
First, to get to this ideology at all, you have to come from a basis that the government provides you these rights. That they're not God-given, inherent, inalienable rights protected by our Constitution, but yet that the Constitution empowers the government to regulate your rights, because the government gave you those rights, so as Megan McCain says, they should be treated like a "library card". So, before you can speak you can plug in your card and see if the government is going to let you speak today, or what they're gonna allow you to say.
So, let me get right to the nuance of what she's saying here, and I can do that by giving you a couple of examples. If I walk into a room and yell,"fire, fire", and everybody turns around and looks at me like I'm stupid, because they can see there's no fire, and then they carry on about their business, there's no result of my speech. There's no damage done. Nobody was injured. No one else's rights were infringed by that speech. It's just an idiot being an idiot, and that is constitutionally protected idiocracy. Now, on the other hand; if I walk into that room I yell, "fire", and people freak out they trample themselves...people are injured...people are killed, then there's damage from my words... for my words that aren't true. That's the nuance.
There is no law that says you cannot yell fire in a crowded room. There's no law that says that, and if there is on a state or local level, or some ordinance, or whatever, it's unconstitutional because the government cannot regulate your free speech. They have absolutely no right to regulate your speech at all, no matter what you say, no matter how stupid you say it! It's insane for people in media, who are right now are screaming bloody murder about Trump trying to try to stifle free speech, and the whole Julian Assange issue, and how all reporters are scared to death that they're going to be thrown in jail, but yet at the same time they're instituting ideologies and policies that are gonna take everybody's free speech. They're the ones that are actually allowing the government to regulate. If they were so upset about it, then they wouldn't have this ideology. They'd get back to the constitution that protects their freedom to say whatever they want to say, but they don't do that.
They're not afraid of government regulation. What they are afraid of... is who may regulate it... right now. They're afraid that Donald J. Trump is going to be the one that tells them what they can, and cannot, say because they've set it all up. They set it up for years through the Obama administration to take your freedoms, to take your rights, to control your speech. And, they've been working overtime since Donald Trump was elected, in large part, because of social media, to control your free speech on social media so it won't happen again in 2020. We're going down that road, and it's gonna be a bitch.
So, let's get back to this nuance, because this nuance is critical. So Anna Navarro is saying here, that because you're not allowed to say that that there's fire in a crowded room, that this gives the government control. Now, they can say that all I want to. They could even pass laws. But its unconstitutional, though there isn't [any].
Let me use another example. Defamation is a good one. If I'm telling the truth, and I've got the evidence to back me, up then no matter what I say, no matter what damage that causes; I'm not liable for it because it's true. But, in a defamation situation, where I unknowingly create lies about someone, or business (who's also treated as an individual with individual rights as opposed to what she said), but if I'm knowingly try to defame a person, or business with false allegations...I can be in trouble. Why? Not from my speech, [but] from the results of that speech. Harm must be proven. Ask any attorney when you want to go sue somebody over car crash. It's the same idea. You can't just sue somebody to sue somebody. Well you can, but it's not gonna go anywhere. It's gonna get kicked if no harm was done by that action. There has to be harm. Harm in defamation. Harm [from] the results of that speech is what you're liable for. So, that tiny nuance where they want to say your speech is regulated, when it's not. The focus is on the harm of the results of that speech.
I can go out in a rally and yell, "burn it down, burn the city down" and yell that all I want to. If nobody does anything, then I'm not gonna be arrested for it [because there's no harm done]. But, let's say I'm some social media giant with this massive following, and I'm standing up there on the crowd and I'm chanting... man I'm getting them worked up.... "let's go... let's burn it down, burn it down!", and people actually go out and burn the city down... then I'm liable for creating a riot because of the results of my speech not the speech itself and that small nuance is what they're clinging to. And this is important that you understand. You have to think logically. You have to think critically here. You can't think emotionally. It's not gonna get you anywhere in this conversation, because it makes sense your first impression. It makes sense to say,"yeah we you should be allowed to scream fire in a crowded room". It just makes sense but that's why Republic is the way a Republic is, and not a democracy not a pure democracy, because a pure democracy tramples everybody's rights. And it dominates, especially the minorities and the minority voices. Anything goes, it runs fast. That's why democracies are chaos. That's why the founders didn't want a democracy. They wanted a Republic, because a Republic runs slowly. It allows time for emotions to settle... for reason and critical thinking to come into issues, and have those issues debated, with time, with many voices to be heard, so that logic and critical thinking has an opportunity to come into the argument before big decisions are made.
In a pure democracy, changes happen overnight based on emotional responses. And we all know that's what the left likes. They like to pump [it] out anytime something big happens. Boom! There it is...all over the place. Calls for this, calls for that, calls for this, calls for that, when you have someone read a headline, and five seconds later before the bodies are ever even picked up, they're calling for this and that; right there, instantaneously, you know that is an emotional liberal response.
That individual isn't thinking critically, not thinking logically, and they are completely thoroughly unconcerned with the actual facts of the case. I always try and sit back and wait, because everything we ever hear in the beginning is almost always wrong or certainly incomplete. Before you can pass judgment on anything, and make any sort of comment about it, you have to have all the facts. Facts are required for critical thinking and logical thinking. That's why the Liberals don't do it. They want to jump on your emotional response. They want to capitalize on that shock factor. And every time something happens, we must do something. We must write another law. We must protect ourselves from ourselves.
A man dies because he didn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle... we've got to do something. It's horrible. It's tragic. We must protect him from himself even though his actions were his own. It should be his choice. His decision, not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms. But, it makes logical sense to us, right? It makes sense you should wear a helmet. I mean, my God. Now, a choice like that may be a dumb choice, but it is his choice [or should be]. See, the Liberals want to protect you from yourself, [but] more than that, they want to control everything. And that's really what it gets down to, and they want to control your freedoms. They want to control your rights. And that right there, that nuance, is how they're gonna do it.
So, the big takeaway here and what you must understand, because the very foundation of our Republic, and our Constitution, and our freedoms, depend on it. What you must understand is that the government does not have a right to control your freedoms any of them, and when they bring up that argument you need to remember that your speech is not regulated it's the results of your speech.
Use those examples that I gave you, and I hope this little bit of information will help arm you in that battle against this liberalism; this socialism; this globalist takeover, because that's a key part of it. I mean it really is the lynchpin in the liberal argument. Let me know if I didn't clarify it enough; If you don't understand exactly what I'm saying, because this is so critical. If you don't understand it, and you don't get it; I'll have to do a follow-up. I'll have to make sure that you understand this.
Anna Navarro is wrong. A lot of lawyers are wrong. But that's what they're teaching in law school...she's right, and those lawyers come out, and the lawyers turn into judges, and they all think this because they're all taught this,and they're not taught the Constitution anymore. They're taught precedent. They're taught law. But, judges don't typically make opinions and rulings based on the Constitution anymore. They cite precedent. They cite law. They cite other cases, which is what precedent is, instead of the Constitution. Some judges even say, "Don't bring the Constitution into my courtroom". Okay, well I hope that explains it, because it's absolutely critical that you understand that. So, let's move on to the next item of interest.
"Well you have also excesses in the first amendment and the second amendment right now. You know, I don't think that the forefathers said well you can say yeah you know all sorts of hateful things, and spread it around the world, literally, spread it through the internet, and cause people to get all...to get the hatred out of them, and then they also have these guns that are uncontrolled also, the ar-15s etc, which I understand that the Second Amendment people say it's a slippery slope but that's what's going on."
[repeat]"Well you have also excesses in the first amendment and the second amendment right now.
[repeat] "Well you have also excesses in the first amendment and the second amendment right now.
I know I don't have excess freedom! How about ask the people in Venezuela right now how excessive their freedom is. Freedom is a very foundation of this Republic. It's what so many have fought and died for, how much treasure has been spent to preserve! "Excess freedom"? What is that? That's not even possible! Hang on...let me...let me check my Patriot dictionary. Nope! Not there! "Excessive freedom" is not even listed in the Patriot dictionary.
It just burns my ass when I hear someone say after all the death, the blood, the treasure spent...to hear someone in this country say that we have excessive freedoms!
Let me tell you what's excessive! The media's conspiracy, and people like Joy Behar, Anna Navarro, all of them on the view, conspiring to destroy our republic! To bring in, to usher in, socialism, at a time where Venezuelans are eating their dogs!
Excessive freedom! The government gives it, the government can take it away. The government can regulate it, and control it; is what they think. I just showed you how they plan to do it, or how they are going about doing it. It's important that you understand these nuances. It's important that you understand the difference in that small, tiny, little constitutional argument with massive ramifications. If they get one little crack that they can squirm into, they will start setting precedent, after precedent, after precedent that builds on itself, because just like with Anna Navarro, we've already seen all the unconstitutional crap that they're teaching in law school.
They're teaching all our lawyers the wrong thing. They're not even teaching the Constitution anymore, anyway. So, no wonder she doesn't know anything about it! But these lawyers become judges, and if they get one little tiny crack where they can exploit your freedoms, your constitutionally protected, inherit, God-given, freedoms...that one little crack is all they need to get in there, and control it. Democrats always have to control everything. Well, all of them do. I can't just blame Democrats on this one.
They all have to control... regulate. It's a power thing. But when you start building that precedent, and you have judges that don't even know about the Constitution, [they rule on precedent, previous law and precedent] then they're going to start taking your other ones away. Because if they set the precedent that they can control and regulate your First Amendment right, guess what else they can regulate?
"...and then they also have these guns that are running uncontrolled also, the AR15's, etc"
Yeah, second. All the rest! Go down the list. Go down that laundry list of freedoms that you hold dear, and start letting that sink in when you want the government to start controlling regulating your freedoms. It will shake, break, and destroy the very foundation of this Republic.
"Well you'll have also excesses in the first amendment, and the second Amendment right now well you have also excesses in the first amendment and the second amendment right now."
"I want the shutdown. I want them silenced. I want them muted. I think they are horrible for our society."
Anna Navarro thinks that your freedoms are so bad that she hates them, wants them muted, squashed, and whatever else she said. And now, here we have Megan McCain...
"Yeah you have to remove child porn from the internet. That's illegal. There are laws on the internet that we abide to in a society. That, that's illegal.
So, in comes Cindy McCain here, and she has now associated the First Amendment right with kiddie porn! Kiddie porn! If you can't see what I'm doing, I'm pounding my head on the table here.
Of course they always need to bring you the emotion to the issue they don't really have an argument here, so they gotta bring in all these external players [issues], and hype it up, and get you an emotionally sensitive. Then these idiots tell other idiots stuff like this, and then when you go out on the street, and you see those guys asking questions of people on the street; supposedly educated people, or kids in college, and they ask them about, "what do you think we should be able to regulate the First Amendment or not", and that's why you get answers like you get when you watch that. "Oh yeah, that kiddie porn is out of control. We need to regulate the First Amendment. That's why. And that's why "The View" is still worth talking about because too many people are watching this crap! You've got idiots,teaching idiots.
Alright, well there's one last thing I want to talk about here regarding this
segment, and that is the multiple members of that panel talking about hate. Talking about how the allowance of freedom of speech is creating hate, and it's creating these events going on in the world that are hateful, violent, and bla bla bla. Now, let me tell you a little different viewpoint here. This really doesn't matter in the context of constitutional freedoms, Liberty, and law. None of this argument really matters, but from a moral point of view, because that's what they're trying to make... that moral argument that this is why we need to regulate our rights, because people get out of control, and they hurt other people.
One thing that is true is you can't exercise a right that steps on another person's right, so always keep that in mind. To sit there and try to limit free speech because of hate is in itself also erroneous, and I want to give you a little bit different viewpoint, and let you chew on it a little bit. In my opinion... now this isn't gonna be true for every single situation but we're talking a bit in generality. [but] I want you to think about this for a minute.
When you are allowed to vent when you come home from work and you've had a bad day, and you're allowed to vent on your spouse, and let it out... don't you feel a little bit better? You got it off your chest... you feel better. You go on with your life. When you're not allowed to vent, it pins up inside, and then what happens?
It builds, and it builds, and it builds, because you can't let it out. And then one day your employer says something just a little bit off the side, and BOOM! You explode on them, and end up losing your job. Pent-up frustration, un-vented anger issues that can't be discussed; that's what you're doing when you are putting people in the dark. When you do not allow them to speak, they lose their vent.
You have a bunch of these little leftist anarchists, whatever, running around. If they're not allowed to vent; if they're not allowed to speak; if people aren't allowed to hear their voices, and debate these issues in an open forum, then they are going to be radicalized! They're gonna come out tearing up cities, shooting stuff up, blowing stuff up, and it's the same thing with anyone.
Now it can get to a point. You take something like, you know, al Qaeda. Something like that...they're on a religious mission. It doesn't matter. It's not really a debatable point with them, but a lot of these other people... our homegrown stuff, it's a matter of being stifled, un-allowed to vent, un-allowed to speak our voices.
Now if you go over to our Bitchute channel. You'll see there, that I have more freedom of information type videos that aren't allowed on YouTube. I do that for a reason, because I believe in the First Amendment speech un-tethered, unregulated, uncontrolled, and allow me to absorb the information that I want to absorb, in order to make up my mind about the issues of the world.
If you hide hate in the closet, it's there simmering under the societal current. If you don't allow it to come out and reveal itself, then the people don't know it's there. The people don't know there's a potential problem. The people can't debate those issues. If someone with hate comes up to me and wants to engage me in conversation, then I have an opportunity to change that person's mind. But, if he's locked in the closet, nobody's listening to him, he's doing nothing but getting frustrated. Anger is building. Pent-up, un-vented, unheard, and then what do you think happens?
He comes out of that closet, and wants to make a statement that people will hear that people will listen to! And get his 15minutes of fame. I kind of understand a little bit of where they're coming from [though]. It's your first twitch instinct. "Oh, it's hate speech. I don't want to hear hate speech. Let's get rid of hate speech." But, that's the thing. You have to think beyond your initial reaction. You have to analyze, process, look at things logically.
If we constantly react on our emotions, our wants, our desires, our needs... then we're not gonna have a republic left. There's a reason why things move slowly in a republic because it's designed to settle the emotion of an issue. It's designed to give time to process, and think through situations logically before making major decisions. That's why they want to move us away from a Republic, and [make us] more democratic, more pure democracy, because they can get those changes done instantly,while everybody's emotions are fresh and hot.
Anyway, we're gonna sign out of here, and I'm gonna leave you on the outtake with a little bit of Joy Behar comedy. I want you to hear the panel's discussion about whether kiddie porn is against the law or not. I mean, yes, these are the type of people we're dealing with. Idiots teaching idiots, that continue to teach idiots! and that is a major issue going on with our country right now. The de-evolution of our society, and our Republic. It's funny... enjoy it, but keep in the back of your mind all the time that this is serious. This isn't one person. There's a lot of people like this, and they're being elected to office, like AOC, Miss. Cortes. She's just trying to figure out how to use a garbage disposal! She's never seen one. So, this stuff is funny, it's comical, but it's dangerous!
Our society thinks this way. A lot of people... and they're electing these people to office. They're your attorneys, that are becoming judges, that are going to decide constitutional issues and laws in this country!
So, enjoy the comedic clip. Thank you for joining us here in the PRC studios...PRC TV, for yet another episode! This is Crash Gilliam signing out! Always striving to bring you the truth... at least as I see it!
Thank you for any donations that you can make on our website PatriotResourceCenter.com, but more important than your donation is your time! It's the most valuable thing that we have as people, and I appreciate you sharing yours with me!
We're gonna take you out with the Deplorable Choir "No Smoking Gun". They can be found on YouTube, and Facebook, [and] probably some more places that I don't know about yet.
You have to remove, like, child porn from the internet. That's illegal. There are laws on the internet that we abide to in a society,..."
"Is that true? I'm not sure that's illegal. I think distribution is. You have to have distribution..."
Lot's of interruptions, giggling, and back-and-forth. Watch clip!
"The View" -Full Uncut Segment on YouTube:
Official Channel Intro YouTube Video Link: