October 17, 2022 • 60 mins
In this episode, Jeff Charles lays out how the FBI is handling investigations related to abortion and why it is apparent it carries a political bias.
He also discusses a law proposed by a Virginia state lawmaker that would criminalize parents who do not affirm their child's gender identity.
Lastly, he goes over the Alex Jones defamation verdict and explains why he is not worth defending over his Sandy Hook comments.
He also discusses a law proposed by a Virginia state lawmaker that would criminalize parents who do not affirm their child's gender identity.
Lastly, he goes over the Alex Jones defamation verdict and explains why he is not worth defending over his Sandy Hook comments.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Now this is the FCB podcast Network. This is a Fresh Perspective with Jeff
(00:23):
Charles. Alright, alright, alright, welcome back, everybody to another episode
of a Fresh Perspective with Jeff Charleswith your favorite conservatorian me, Jeff Charles
got another buyer episode for you today. We're gonna talk about a few different
things that are big in the newsright now. Some might be a little
(00:43):
bit outrageous, but I think you'llget a kick out of it. I'm
going to talk about the FBI againand how it's been politicized. I'm gonna
talk about a questionable law that's beingintroduced in Virginia's state legislature. And I'm
going to address this whole Alex Jonesthing. I think some of you aren't
(01:04):
going to be too fond of whatI'm going to say on that, but
that's okay. That's what these conversationsare for. But before I go into
everything again, welcome and be sureto subscribe if you haven't done that already.
That way you'll be notified whenever Iupload a new episode. Also,
give me a five star rating onwhatever podcast app you're using. Five stars.
(01:26):
That's going to help me out alot, and also leave me a
comment, leave me a little bitof a leave a little bit of a
review, letting people know why youlove this podcast so much. All right,
deal, great, Okay, solet's get in. Let's get into
this first. I want to talkabout the FBI, and I've been talking
about how the FBI has been isbeing politicized for quite a while now.
(01:51):
And it didn't just start over thepast a couple of years or so.
Right, we saw how a lothow some of their agents behaved the twenty
sixteen presidential election when they were foundto have been spying on Donald Trump,
trying to use the Steele dossier todiscredit him and to discredit his election,
Which is interesting because they're complaining aboutpeople who questioned the twenty twenty election when
(02:15):
they did the same thing with twentysixteen. But since then, it's been
pretty clear that the FBI had athing for Trump like they and they still
do. It still appears that way. I mean, they had that raid
on his home a couple months ago, and you know, we're still waiting
on what's going to happen with thatwhole thing. Again. I'll change my
mind on that if other evidence presentsitself, but for all intents and purposes,
(02:39):
it is coming off as a political, politically motivated endeavor on their part.
But the Bureau's politicization has gone evenbeyond Trump. And you know,
you've also seen over the past fewyears or even just recently, how they
(03:00):
have gone after people, maybe notexplicitly for their views, but for their
views. And this has really comeup with the issue of abortion. Ever
since the Supreme Code, the StreameCode, the Supreme Court struck down Roe
(03:20):
v. Wade, abortion has beena hot topic. And I'm not talking
about the store, the clothing store, but over the past year, we've
seen a lot of violence coming fromthe pro abortion side, and we've seen
a bit of a bias, maybenot a bit of a bias, a
lot of bias on the part ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation in how it's
(03:44):
going after supposed crimes committed by bothsides. So it is clear that at
this point they are not a neutralenforcer of federal laws. And realistically,
the FBI has always been pluted sizeeven from its inception, if I'm going
to be fair, I mean itwas used against people on the left.
It's been used against people on theright. It was used against black people
(04:06):
in the civil rights movement. Theywere even spying on Aretha Franklin, the
Queen of Soul. So I mean, this bureau has always had issues with
corruption and political bias, but rightnow we can clearly see who their targets
are, which is why you've gota lot of people on the right calling
(04:26):
for the defunding of the FBI.At least they woke up at some point.
Now if they can only apply thatto state and local law enforcement as
well, that'd be great. Now, I'm not talking about defund the police.
I'm talking about rooting out corruption.Right. So here's what's going on
now. As you know, thebureau is not supposed to be engaged in
(04:49):
partisan politics, and they definitely aren'tsupposed to choose which cases to take seriously
based on the politics of the matter. But this is what they've done on
the abortion issue. So last weekthere was video footage that surfaced showing armed
FBI agents arresting a man named PaulVaughan. I believe he was in Tennessee.
(05:12):
He's fifty five years old, andhe had been participating in anti abortion
protests. So he's a prolifer.And when you're looking at the footage,
you can hear a woman, probablyhis wife, asking the agents why they
were banging out her door with gunsand asking them to explain why they were
(05:32):
arresting this man, and the agentsrefused to answer. Now, Vaughn was
just one of eleven pro lifers whoare being indicted in Tennessee because they allegedly
blocked access to an abortion clinic inthe state. And this occurred doing a
(05:56):
protest in March, not March ofthis year, March of twenty twenty one.
That's right. They arrested these peopleand they are indicting them for something
that they did in March last year. Now, this is apparently our esteemed
FBI doing yeoman's work and keeping ussafe from by taking these dangerous pro life
(06:23):
protesters off the streets. I mean, imagine how many lives have been saved
because these people were being hauled tojail. And again, von was only
one of these individuals. The othersgot a not so friendly visit from armed
FBI agents as well. Okay,now, I know that there are laws
(06:44):
in most states against blocking access toabortion facilities. It's not against a lot
of protests the First Amendment protects that, but I guess you're not allowed to
prevent people from entering physically. Now. I don't know that the details of
all these cases, and and I'mnot sure whether they actually broke the law
or not, but the idea thatyou wait over a year, like a
(07:08):
year and a half to an effectarrest, affect and arrest, and it
just comes off a little bit suspiciousto me, especially given the fact that
we have seen a lot of politicalbias coming from the bureau. Now,
meanwhile, remember all those of firebombings and acts of vandalism that pro abortion
(07:29):
activists have been perpetrating against pro lifeorganizations like crisis pregnancy centers, advocacy groups,
churches. They've been firebombing them,They've been vandalizing and destroying the parts
of these buildings, and so farthey haven't escalated to targeting humans. But
that is the only logical conclusion,especially if nothing is done about it.
(07:54):
And speaking of which, the FBIhas not arrested a single person in connection
with these acts of violence and vandalism, not a single one. In fact,
they aren't even talking about it.So I read an article I believe
this was in the Daily signal andthe Wisconsin Family Action of this is a
(08:18):
group and that is a pro life. It was one of the first to
be vandalized, and it happened shortlyafter the draft opinion coming from the Supreme
Court was leaked to the public basicallysaying that they were going to overturn Roe
v. Wade. So they firebombed the place and they even spray painted
(08:39):
a message on one of the walls. It said, quote, if abortions
aren't safe, then you aren't either. Now this was done by a pro
abortion in my opinion, domestic terroristgroup called Jane's Revenge. They took credit
for it and also for several otheracts of vandalism. They posted some of
these things online. They reached alsoreached out to a journalist name Robert Evans,
(09:03):
who is who is a lefty,but he basically just relayed the message
that that that they sent to him. I'm not saying he condones this.
And by the way, he's gota great podcast called Behind the Bastards.
You should check that out. Ifyou're a conservative. You won't agree with
the political views, but it's veryeducational, very interesting anyway. But I
digress, Yes, I did.I just plugged a left wing podcast,
(09:26):
but it's it's great. So anyway, Jane's revenge. In their message,
they said that this was quote,just a warning, and they promised more
violence. They said, quote,we demand the disbanding of all anti choice
establishments, fake clinics, and violentanti choice groups within the next thirty days.
(09:50):
And they've carried out other acts ofviolence. And they're not the only
ones. There are other pro abortionactivists who are carrying out these acts.
And I will get to the numbersin a set. But the FBI showed
up after the fire bombing. TheATF showed up as well, and you
know, they looked around to theirthing, and since they left, they've
(10:13):
said nothing about it. So JulineAppling, she's the president of Wisconsin Family
Counsel, and she told the DailySignal that she has heard quote nothing from
the FBI after they left our officeon the day of the attack May eighth.
Now, she said she wasn't surewhether whether the FBI or ATF took
(10:33):
pictures of the scene because they werebehind behind closed doors all day long.
And she said that she has alsonever received anything in writing. Now.
She did say that the bureau calledone time to check on a phone number,
and that was mid to late May, and then she said, quote
crickets since then now. In anotherDaily Signal report, the author noted that
(10:58):
quote the Federal Bureau of Investigation willnot share whether it has made any arrests
related to attacks on pro life centers, organizations and Catholic churches following the leak
of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roev. Wave Now, the report said,
at least eighty three Catholic churches andseventy three pregnancy resource centers or pro
(11:20):
life organizations have been attacked since thedraft opinion was leaked in May, so
that's over one hundred and these centersand organizations have also told The Daily Signal
that they haven't heard anything from federalauthorities on the matter. There no updates,
no questions, no nothing. It'sa wall of silence coming from the
(11:45):
Bureau. Now. The FBI releaseda statement to The Daily Signal that,
ironically enough, was basically the samestatement that they issued to the Daily Wire
on this matter, and it saidthat it is investigating quote a series of
attack and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers, faith based organizations, and reproductive health
clinics across the country, as wellas to judicial buildings, including the US
(12:09):
Supreme Court. They said they quotetake all violence and threats of violence very
seriously and is working closely with ourlaw enforcement partners at the national, state,
and local levels to investigate these incidents. Yeah, I'm gonna call BS.
I'm called BS on this. Theseare lies. They are lyne and
(12:30):
the truth and in them. Here'smy thing. This is the Federal Bureau
of Investigation that we're talking about here. We're not talking about some small law
enforcement agency in a podunk rural areaof the country. Not trying to disrespect
them, but I'm just saying theFBI, this is the federal government of
these here, United States of America. This agency has a near unlimited supply
(12:54):
of resources that it could bring tobear on this matter. Look at how
easily they rounded up the people whowere involved in the January six riots at
the US Capitol building. There werethousands of people in that area, and
they managed to track so many ofthese people down from different states, different
localities, and they were able toround them up. There's no reason why
(13:16):
they haven't been able to make asingle or not even one person in connection
with these crimes. Now, Ican understand that they had gotten some people
and then maybe not others. Imean, I don't expect them to be
perfect, but if they were actuallytrying to find out who is carrying this
stuff out with the resources they have, they could have found some people.
(13:39):
Come on, now, I mean, it's interesting because they're prioritizing this supposed
threat of white supremacy because that's whatthey've been trying to sell us on,
and whistle blowers are saying that they'recooking the numbers on that to categorize cases
as white supremacists violence or white supremacistcases that don't really have much to do
(14:00):
with white supremacy. They have even, according to these whistleblowers, they have
allegedly allocated agents and resources from childabuse cases and put it towards finding rooting
out these threats of white supremacist violence, ostensibly to justify their claim that domestic
extremism coming from the right is thebiggest threat to national security, because that's
(14:22):
what they've been claiming over the pastfew years. And it sounds like they're
not coming up with a whole lot. The demand is more than the supply,
it seems I'm not saying that there'sno white supremacist violence. We saw
what happened in Buffalo, New Yorkand in other cases too, so I'm
not saying there's there's absolutely none,but I'm not convinced that there is enough
to say to make the claim thatthis is some dire threat to national security.
(14:46):
Now again, I'm willing to beproven wrong if other evidence comes up.
But I've been I've been waiting,and it hasn't happened. Right,
So to put it simply, thesepeople are lying. They are not interested
in dealing with the people who areresponsible for this violence and vandalism. They're
not making an effort. But theyhave all the time in the world to
(15:09):
go after these pro life protesters fromlast March, who may or may not
have been blocking an entryway to anabortion clink. And we don't even know
if they actually physically stopped people fromgoing in. I'm suspecting they didn't,
but these folks could be. Imean, I don't know what the punishment
(15:30):
is for it, so I don'tknow if this is punishable by prison or
by a fine or something like that. But the fact of the matter is,
our federal government is devoting resources tothese people when there are others who
are actually engaging in acts of violence. I'm glad that they haven't gone after
people yet, but there's already aninstance of a person of an old woman
(15:52):
being shot because of an argument overabortion. She was handing out pamphlets that
was encouraging people to go against ameasure in her state that would have supported
abortion, which is her right todo that, and she got shot.
Now it wasn't by one of thesegroups, but whatever, I mean,
it's only going to be a matterof time before they escalate, especially since
(16:15):
a lot of these laws are goinghave been going into effect in red states
that are restricting abortion. But here'sthe thing, Well, what I mean,
what can be done about it?I mean, the GOP would have
to hold the FBI accountable when theyhave enough power. I'm sure they're going
to take the House, possibly eventhe Senate. But even then, are
they going to have enough influence toactually do something about this. I'm not
(16:40):
sure that they will. I mean, we might have to wait until there's
another Republican president in the White Housein twenty twenty four, because that would
be under his purview. And whetherthat's Trump or someone else. That's what's
going to have to happen. Anduntil then, we're just going to deal
with the FBI being corrupt. AndI hate to say it, but it's
true. I mean, I'm Ithought a lot of the stuff is getting
(17:00):
out there. I'm glad that thesewhistleblowers are coming forward. There's a lot
of scandals going on at the bureau. Maybe I'll do a segment on that
one day, just all the stuffthat's been happening with these whistleblowers, because
I've been writing about it, butI haven't you talked about it verbally yet.
So that's the latest on what yourFBI is up to. Dear listener.
(17:22):
I'll leave it there for right now, but I know that there will
be more. But until then,I'll see you on the flip side.
Stay tuned. These days, itseems like everybody's talking, but no one
is actually listening to the things they'resaying. Critical thinking isn't dead, but
it's definitely low on oxygen. Joinme Kia Davis on Jeff. Listen to
(17:44):
yourself every week as we reason throughissues big and small, critique our own
ideas, and learn to draw ourtalking points all the way out to their
logical conclusions. Subscribe to Just Listento Yourself with Kia Davis, an FCB
radio podcast on Apple, Spotify,iHeart, or wherever you get your podcasts.
(18:07):
All right, welcome back to afresh perspective, Virkomen, come and
see. Thanks for hanging with me. Appreciate all of my listeners. And
in this segment, I'm going totalk about a little something going on in
Virginia which has kind of been aground zero of sorts when it comes to
(18:30):
the debate over transing children and theproblematic stuff that they're trying to teach in
K through twelve classrooms. That's wherea lot of the lot of a lot
of the protest has taken place.I mean, it's been going on all
over the country, but the issuewas pretty egregious when it comes to Loudon
County, Virginia. And as youknow, Republican was elected Governor Glenn Youngcan
(18:56):
back in November of last Yeah,and he's been a kind of he's been
following through on his promises to dealwith these issues, to stop these school
districts from trying to indoctrinate children intofar leftist progressive so called progressive ideology when
it comes to issues like race,or sexuality or gender identity, and so
(19:22):
he has been implementing some policy inthat regard, and of course the Democrats
in the state aren't too happy aboutit. And it's funny. I actually
just got done talking about this ona Victory news You should check out my
appearances there, you know, I'llput them up on my YouTube channel,
I suppose. But I saw thisstory yesterday. It was actually sent to
(19:48):
me by Ian Pryor, who isa senior advisor for America First Legal.
He's also a part of a groupcalled Citizens for Sanity. This guy wears
a lot of hats, but hesent me this story. And you know
what, I wasn't surprised by it. As a matter of fact, I've
been warning about it over the pastmore than a year or so, and
now they're making another push for thissoul. So let's get into the store.
(20:11):
Let's get into this. And Iactually wrote an article about this on
red state dot com and it's noteven in the pa behind the paywall,
so you can go and read itat your leisure. But you still should
you subscribe to red State because youcan read all my VIP articles where I
put my deepest, most, inner, most intimate thoughts. Anyway, all
(20:33):
right, I'll stop goofing off.So a Virginia lawmaker. She's part of
the House of Delegates, which isI guess kind of like their House of
Representatives. Her name is Elizabeth Guzman. And if she gets her way,
parents who do not affirm their child'ssexual orientation or gender identity, like if
(20:57):
they're dealing with gender dysphoria, ifthey do not affirm these things to the
extent that she wants them to,they could face felony or misdemeanor charges if
this woman gets her way. Now, Elizabeth Gooseman is a social worker,
but she's also a part of thelegislature, the state legislature, and she
(21:21):
reintroduced a bill because she did thisin twenty twenty the first time and it
didn't go anywhere, but she's tryingagain. And this bill is ostensibly designed
to protect LGBTQ children from their evilparents who may not affirm their choices when
(21:41):
it comes again to their sexuality andgender identity. Here's what the measure would
do. It would expand the state'sdefinition of child abuse to include to include
parents who are not in alignment withprogressive viewpoints on these matters sexuality, gender
(22:02):
identity. So she had an interviewwith ABC seven News, a local news
affiliate, and she said, quote, if the child shares with those mandated
reporters what they are going through,we are talking about not only physical abuse
or mental abuse. What the jobof that mandated reporter is to inform child
(22:23):
protective services? Right? You know, we just had some whack job left
wing media activists try to call CPSon a candidate running for office in a
different state. I believe because shewas supposedly teaching her child how to be
a racist, because she said HappyColumbus Day. We already know that these
(22:48):
people want to use the government againstparents who don't deal with their children the
way the way the government says theyshould. Now, Guzman continued, she
said, quote and then that's howeverybody gets involved. There's also an investigation
in place that is not only froma social worker, but there's also a
police investigation before we make the decisionthat there is going to be a CPS
(23:14):
charge. Is So, what shewants to do is make it easier for
these school districts to enforce their ideology, not just on the child, but
also on the parents because right now, the school districts can't do anything to
the parents. Now they can lieto them, they can help their children
transition to the opposite gender supposedly becausethat's not possible. But they can do
(23:40):
this without the parents' knowledge. Ifthe kid says that they don't want their
parents to know, they won't tellthem, and they'll even lie to them.
They'll use the kid's birth name andbirth pronouns in front of the parents,
and then once the parents are gone, they'll use the child's chosen name
and chosen pronouns. So there's alot of deception involved here, but this
bill, if passed, would givethem even more teeth because they can say,
(24:03):
oh, well, parent, you'renot affirming your kids gender ideology or
your kids chosen gender. It lookslike you're going to get a visit from
CPS and the police. Right that'swhat this is intended to do now.
When she was asked, when Guzmanwas asked what the penalties would be if
the authorities determined that a parent isnot affirming enough of their LGBTQ child,
(24:29):
that's when Guzman said that it couldbe a felony or a misdemeanor. So
she said, quote, well,we first have to complete an investigation.
It could be a felony, itcould be a misdemeanor. But we know
that CPS could could harm your employment, could harm their education because nowadays many
people do a CPS database search beforeoffering employment. Now, then I don't
(24:55):
think that these are the only consequencesthat she wants. But this is bad
enough, isn't it that you wouldharm somebody's ability to get an education or
employment because they don't believe in theLGBTQ ideas that the progressives want them to
believe in. But it's none oftheir business, right, I'll get to
that in a second. Let's justkeep going through the story. Now,
(25:18):
you guys already know how I feelabout it, but I'll lay it out
at a little bit better. Theinterviewer also asked this state delegate about critics
who say that this bill would essentiallyessentially criminalize parents, and then the reporter
asked how she would respond to thatcriticism. She said, quote, no,
it's not. It's educating parents becausethe law tells you the dues and
(25:42):
don'ts. So this law is tellingyou do not abuse your children because they
are LGBTQ. Now here's the thing. Virginia already has laws on the books
to prevent child abuse. So regardlessof the reason as to why you're abusing
(26:04):
your child, you can still beprosecuted. You can still the authorities will
still deal with you, which theyshould if you're actually abusing your child.
But again, what Guzman is tryingto do here is expand the definition of
the term child abuse to include thingsthat aren't necessarily abuse. But this isn't
about abuse. This is again aboutprogressives enforcing their ideology. See, they
(26:30):
don't work through persuasion, right,we know this. Progressives, the hard
left does not try to get theirway through persuasion through having conversations because they
know their ideas suck, so theyhave to do with through force. That's
why they're all about censorship. That'swhy they're okay with the fact that the
Biden administration is working with companies tosuppress conservative views online. It's why they
(26:56):
shout down speakers on college campuses whodon't agree with them. It's why they
try to cancel anybody who expresses apoint of view that they don't like.
And it's also why they want touse the government as much as they possibly
can to force their ideas on therest of the nation, and this is
just yet another attempt to do that. Now. The reporter also brought up
(27:21):
the First Amendment protections related to religiousfreedom right Congress shall not pass any laws
infringing on the right to practice one'sreligion. Right. Here's her response to
that. This isn't funny. I'mnot laughing because it's funny, But here's
her response. The Bible. Shesays, quote okay, okay, okay.
(27:44):
Quote the Bible says to accept everyonefor who they are. So that's
what I tell people when they askedme that question, and that's what I
will continue to tell people. Youknow, we all have a commitment to
God, and for those believers outthere, we know that there's life afterlife
and there's going to be a conversationbetween that person and God, and that's
(28:07):
what we're after to go by whatthe Bible says. It is not my
job to judge anyone. It ismy job to help people and to possibly
threaten them with jail time and notbeing able to get employment if they don't
do what I say. Okay.I may or may not have added that
last part, but the rest sheactually said this tell me that you don't
read the Bible. Without telling methat you don't read the Bible, that's
(28:30):
what she's doing here. I mean, And if you're a Christian and you're
listening to this, you already knowthe counter to this argument, right,
Yes, you do. God callsus to love people. That doesn't mean
that we have to accept everything thatthey do, right, I mean,
there's nowhere in the Bible where itsays that. And there's definitely nothing in
(28:52):
the Bible that says you should bethreatening people with the police because they don't
raise their kids the way you wantthem to. Again, there's a difference
between abuse and what we're actually talkingabout here. Now. I actually pulled
up the law itself, and Ipulled up the passage that she wants to
add, because it goes through allthe different criteria that defines what child abuse
(29:17):
is under Virginia law. And itfurther so, what she would do is
what this is what she would beadding on. It would define the term
as behavior that quote creates or inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or
allows to be created or inflicted uponsuch child a physical or mental injury,
on the basis of the child's genderidentity or sexual orientation. But again,
(29:42):
if you read that law, italready disallows this. You cannot abuse your
child in Virginia. There are lawsagainst that, regardless of the reason why
you're doing it. But again,she's expanding the definition because she wants to
include parents that aren't necessarily abusing theirkids. But they're not. And if
they have a daughter named Sally,they don't approve of him, of her
(30:03):
saying okay, now my name issam and I don't mean Samantha, I
mean like Samuel the dude's name.Yeah, all right, So here.
Now, obviously there are people takingan issue with this, and I reached
out to a few different people.Nicole Neelie, president of Parents Defending Education,
(30:23):
which is a great organization to support. It's a parential rights advocacy group,
and they have filed a bunch oflawsuits against a lot of this stuff
that's being taught in schools, whetherit's on race or sexuality or gender identity,
and they've been winning actually, sothey're doing very good work. So
I spoke with Nicole Neely, whoI have actually had on this podcast twice.
Now you can check those out onmy YouTube channel, same name,
(30:45):
A Fresh Perspective with Jeff Charles,and she told me, quote, regardless
of what Delegate Guzman may believe,Virginia parents have a fundamental right to direct
the upbringing of their children, andwe have no intention of surrendering those rights
to her or any other education bureaucrat. I have a feeling that she may
(31:07):
have wanted to say something else there, but she you know, you got
to be you know, politically correct, She's got to be diplomatic. But
she's right, She's right. Thisis nothing more than trying to interfere with
the way parents raise their children.So that shouldn't be surrendered. And that's
the thing that's really what this isabout. This is about parental rights.
And actually I'll get to that ina second. I also spoke with Ian
(31:30):
Pryor, the person who sent methe story. Again. He's a senior
advisor at America First Legal. I'vehad him on my program twice. Check
that out on my YouTube channel.This guy that means the stuff that he
brings up, the stuff that youknow that we need to know about.
I'll say that, and he said, quote, as shocking and evil as
this is it is not surprising schoolsin Virginia are keeping parents out of the
(31:53):
loop when their children tell staff thatthey want to identify as a different sex.
The very reason schools are doing thisis because they believe that parents failure
to affirm is abuse, and thatis the crux of the matter. See,
to these people, abuse isn't slappingyour kid, punching your kid,
(32:15):
verbally abusing them, calling them allkinds of names, tearing them down every
day. They don't believe that that'sall that child abuses. And of course
there's more two with them that I'mnot trying to downplay child abuse here,
that's not what's going on. Butthey believe that if you don't think that
your daughter named Myra should become manny, that's abuse right there. That alone
(32:38):
is abuse, even if you're stillloving on your kid. And I've talked
to mothers who have gone through this. Gabrielle Clark, her daughter's school try
to pull this crap on her,try to encourage her to believe that she
was really a boy. And Gabbyhad to go through a whole process to
(33:00):
get her out of that, andshe ended up having to move to a
different state. And now she's abig activist on this stuff. She was
just in Anaheim protesting, and she'svery active on social media. And guess
what Twitter did today, They suspendedher account. Again, progressives don't work
by persuasion because their ideas suck.They go through force. But I digress.
(33:22):
Prior also said that this bill isa natural progression from what the woke
left is pushing, and he said, make no mistake, they will lose
this fight. Politicians that push itwill be defeated. Organizations that try to
separate children from caring parents will beprosecuted and sued. The sick and twisted
(33:46):
agenda of these activists will be arelic of the past, and they will
join the ranks of history's villains.And he's right. But even if we're
looking at the here and now,Guzman's bill is not going to get past.
It's just not going to happen.She's gonna lose, and she probably
probably knows it. Even Democrats havecome out against it. Representative Abigail Spanburger,
(34:10):
and I'll give you a little bitof tea on her. She's a
Democrat, and she said this billwill be dead in the water. She's
like she didn't agree with it.She didn't think that this was a good
idea. But one of her surrogatesand I wrote about this too the other
day. Just the other day,I wrote about this. One of her
surrogates was at a meeting at somebody'shome and said the quiet part out loud
(34:30):
and said that he believes that children, children whose parents don't affirm their gender
identity should be removed from the home. They want to take your kids away,
guys. I'm not exaggerating. Heactually said this. These people want
to remove your children. But whyBecause it's a fundamental difference in thinking between
(34:52):
progressives and sane people. And Ispecifically say progressives because I think that most
people who've democrat would agree with youand I on this. They would see.
The thing is, these people,again, they don't think your kids
belong to you. They believe thatyour children should belong to the state,
(35:13):
and you're just caretakers. That's whatthey had their way, if they could
have, if they could wave amagic wand and have their way tomorrow,
that is exactly what the society wouldlook like. The government would be raising
your children and you can kind ofjust be a caretaker, but you have
to do with the way they tellyou to do it. Otherwise they'll throw
you in jail, or they willsend CPS to your home. It's it's
(35:37):
evil. It is nothing less thanwicked. But here, this is why
I talk about this so much.I mean, don't think that I don't
get sick of talking about this theonly way. Oh, I'll walk that
back. I don't get sick oftalking about it because it's too important.
But don't think that I don't thatI like having to talk about this in
(35:58):
the first place. I should beable to talk about policy and other stuff,
you know, immigration, and Ido. But I talk about this
issue so much because it is thatimportant, Like I've always said, Like
I said on the last episode,this is one of the biggest issues that
the country is facing that nobody knowsabout. So I am trying to do
my part to expose it as muchas possible. And I've got up and
(36:19):
there's there are other people doing ittoo. Brandan Showalter at the Christian Post
him and I became friends recently overthis issue. He's been on my podcast
twice. I met him in persona few weeks ago here in Austin.
But there are a lot of otherpeople who are pushing back against this,
because this isn't just about transing thekids, although that's bad enough. This
is about what they want to theirend goal to control as much as your
(36:45):
life as possible, to control yourparenting. Imagine that that is what these
people want. So, yes,this bill is going to get slapped down.
Yes, sure, but we shouldnot assume that this is not going
to come back, because it is. This is the end goal of what
they want. If anything, wecan look at this as a test run
(37:07):
because again, she knows that thisbill is not going to pass, and
they are bent on pushing their genderideology on the rest of the public,
regardless of how we feel about it. If they have to threaten you with
criminal penalties or use the state tokidnap your children, because that is what
they would be doing, then sobe it. This is yet another reason
(37:30):
why we have to squash this crapas soon as possible. We've got to
squash it in the culture, insociety, at the legislation. We need
a full court press on this becauseif we don't, we're going to have
even more casualties. And we've alreadygot enough as it is, and we're
going to see more of these inthe next one, two, three,
(37:52):
four, five, six, seven, eight, nine to ten years.
We're going to see more people whogot transition that want to go back.
And we're going to even see peopleand I hate to say it, who
may have committed suicide because they tookpuberty blockers, or women who are girls
who got their breast cut off attwelve thirteen years old because they thought that
that would fix their mental health.I could go on about this, but
(38:15):
I'll leave it right there for rightnow, give us a second, going
to pay some bills and I willbe right back. This is Darvy O
King Penmorl, co host of TheOutlaws radio show, and if you haven't
heard our show before, check outthis clip JD Vance. One of the
things I think we have to doon the Republican side, because we've got
(38:36):
the white working class and I thinkwe've got them solid, is start to
attract you know, the black andI guess now the Latina working class into
our coalition. Because I think wedo that and we serve those voters well,
I mean we could we could becomethe majority party in this country for
a generation if we actually see theopportunity and get what I tell a lot
of my friends. You know,we're a little older than I. I'm
(38:57):
thirty seven years old. I'm gonnasay, well, you know, we
really want to get back to thecountry club set in the Republican Party.
And I say, look, atthe end of the day, like we're
going to be a stronger party ifwe accept that the country club set maybe
is never coming back, but weacquire some of those black and Hispanic working
class voters into our coalition, like, let the country club set go,
you know, let them use theirpreferred pronouns and obsess about racial issues and
(39:22):
gender issues because they're all crazy.And I think that this is something that
actually unites a lot of working classwhite and black folks, is we just
want to live in a country wherewe don't have to obsessively worry about everything
that we say. Subscribe to TheOutlaws Radio Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeart Radio, or wherever you getyour podcast. That's out Laws The
(39:47):
Outlaws Radio Show, an FCB Radiopodcast. All right, y'all, welcome
on back to this final segment ofA Fresh perspect Active with Jeff Charles.
Thank you so much for listening.I am grateful for Ali yal guys are
awesome, and just want to remindyou please subscribe to this podcast if you
(40:09):
haven't already, and give me afive star rating on whatever podcast app that
you're using. I really appreciate anyand all support. And if you have
ten seconds, because that's as longas that's how long this takes, just
leave me a few sentences of acomment or a review, letting people know
why you love this podcast. Allof those things help me out immensally,
(40:30):
especially with the algorithms, especially ifyou're if you're a communist and you're listening
to this on an Apple device andyou're using Apple Podcasts to listen to this
podcast. I'm just kidding. I'mfine with you Apple people. I just
prefer Android, all right. Okay, Now, don't don't leave. Come
back, come back, come back, come back, come back. We
(40:52):
can all get along. We canall coexist with one another, all right.
Okay, So, speaking of otherunpopular opinions, let's talk about Alex
Jones on what I think of thiswhole case. Because it ain't gonna be
popular. Well, I don't know, maybe it is, maybe I'm underestimating
it. But here's the thing.You know you've probably already heard the news.
(41:15):
Alex Jones lost yet another court caseafter being sued for defamation for comments
deceptive comments, lies that he toldabout the mass shooting in Sandy Hook at
at at an elementary school. Andhe's been sued by a bunch of different
(41:36):
plaintiffs, and you know, somein Texas, some in other states.
This one was in Connecticut and itinvolved some of the parents and other relatives
of the kids of some of thekids who died there. And you know,
he lost a case, obviously,but the judge awarded almost one billion
(42:00):
dollars to the plaintiffs that Alex Joneshas to pay. Now, before I
get into the rest of this,I'm just going to start out by saying,
for those who say that one billiondollars is too much, it's excessive,
I agree with you. I do. I mean, I mean,
(42:22):
what he did was horrible. I'mnot going to downplay what he did because
it was disgusting. So I thinkI'm only going to make people angry if
you think that it was okay whathe did. But what he did was
wrong in my opinion and obviously inthe opinion of the jury. But a
billion dollars. I mean, comeon out. First off, the dude
is aren't going to pay a billiondollars. He doesn't have a billion dollars
(42:43):
and he's never gone well, Idon't know, maybe at some point he
will, but he's not gonna havea billion dollars, So the families aren't
going to get that. I thinkthis was done to send a message,
and it's not a very good one. I think this could have been politically
motivated, just like you know,because everything that we look at has to
be viewed through a political lens.It can't just be whether this is right
(43:04):
or wrong. It has to bewhether this is right or left right.
Hey, I just coined a newphrase. I'm going to use that more
often in this situation. It's notabout what's right or wrong, it's about
what's right or left? Yes,all right, you know see I come
up with the stuff without even tryingto. But I digress. Anyway,
let's get into this. So,yeah, I agree with what I'm about
to say isn't really directed at thepeople, was directed at everybody. But
(43:28):
I agree that almost a billion dollarsis excessive. That's way too much.
But he does deserve at least stillmost of what he's getting. But here's
the reason I'm talking about this.And I was going to write an article
about it, but I don't know. I still might. But the reason
I wanted to talk about this isbecause it brings up an opportunity to kind
(43:51):
of educate a little bit on thesubject of defamation. And I was talking
about this on Twitter last night andI realized that a lot of people don't
really know how defamation law works.Now I'm not a lawyer, I'm not
an attorney, but I am ajournalist, so I have to understand how
how these laws work, and thereare differences depending on what state you're in.
But even before I became a journalist, when I used to do a
(44:13):
lot of freelance writing, I usedto do a lot of freelance writing for
law firms and defamation was one ofthe things that I had to write about,
so I got very familiar with thetopic. So I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not pretending to be, butI do have at least a rudimentary
understanding of how defamation works as itrelates to tort law. And when you
(44:35):
look at this case, you cansee that it fits it does fit.
And people are claiming that this isa free speech issue or a First Amendment
issue, but it's not. See, the First Amendment does not protect defamation.
And you know, if you're listeningto this, you probably already know
the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech. It protects most speech, and protects
(44:55):
way more speech than other countries aregranting to their citizens or protecting for their
citizens. But defamation is one ofthose things that you can't do. And
again, a lot of people aren'treally familiar with what defamation is and how
it works. So I want toagain, I want to talk about this
because this is these are issues.These are issues that affect other prominent news
(45:20):
stories as well. You look atNick Sandman with the Covington kids, who
were defamed basically by CNN and otheractivist media outlets and portrayed as racist,
and Nick Sandman sued and you know, a lot of those outlets had to
settle. I don't think any ofthem actually went to trial, but he
was suing him for defamation because ofwhat they did to him. And you
(45:44):
know, and then the activist mediadoes this to a lot of people,
but not everybody has the wherewithal orthe resources to file lawsuits at which they
did, because a lot of peoplewere doing the what aboutism thing? Well,
what about when the media lied aboutthis or that? Oh you know
what, I'm not a fan ofwhat a boutism? But you're right,
I mean, and media outlets happenssuit for defamation successfully before, but I
(46:06):
don't think it happens nearly enough.I would advocate for making it easier to
hold these outlets accountable. And Idon't care if it's left wing or right
wing. If it's Fox News andthey lie about somebody, they should be
held to account because that's not somethingthat we should be encouraging in our media
outlets. But I digress again,So let's get into this. Let's get
(46:27):
into Alex Jones. So, whenit comes to speech, you have the
right to criticize people. You havethe right to criticize your government. You
have the right to criticize I don'tknow, Lizzo or Brad Pitt. You
can criticize your neighbor. You cansay what you want and let you scroll
(46:53):
down here. And basically, ifit's defamation, there are a few different
types of criteria. So let mejust define a term really quick and This
is coming from a website called Nolo. I've gone there many times to understand
the legalities of various issues, defamationbeing one of them. So, the
(47:13):
defamation occurs when an individual makes afalse statement. It has to be false
verbally or in writing about someone elsethat damages that person's reputation. And like
I said earlier, these laws aredifferent from state to state, but there
is still the basic principle of defamation. It is a statement that you make
(47:37):
a false statement. It has tobe false, again, whether it's verbal
or written. If it's written,then it's referred to as libel. So
if I write an article and Imake something up about some politician I don't
like, and it's clearly false,and while I'm getting ahead of myself,
then that's libel. But if Isay something on my podcast or on a
(47:57):
YouTube video, that is slander.Right. So, a plaintiff suing for
defamation in order to bring the caseand have a chance of winning, all
of all of the things that I'mabout to list have to be true.
All of these criteria must be metto have a chance of winning a defamation
(48:19):
suit. The first criteria is thatthe defendant or the person who was accused
published a statement about the plaintiff.Two the statement was false. Three the
statement was injurious. Four the statementwas not privileged. So let's go with
(48:43):
the first one. Published. Now, this doesn't mean that it has to
be in a magazine or a newspaperor a book. It just has to
be said or written in a waythat the public could hear it. So
again, if I say something aboutmy podcast and people listen to it,
then it's published. If I goout in front of somebody's store and start
yelling about how the owner is racistwhen they're not, or that they engaged
(49:07):
in racial crimes or racial discrimination andpeople hurt it walking by, or maybe
a hild to sign, that's published. So it can be on TV anywhere,
at a town hall, speech meeting, or even at the site says
during cocktail party chatter. So let'sgo to the second one. False.
(49:31):
The statement has to be false onlyfalse. Statements of fact can be defamatory.
Note statements of fact. That doesn'tmean opinion. Like here's the statement
of opinion. Rosario Dawson is thefinest actress in the world. Now I
(49:51):
would say that's a fact, butI mean people might disagree with that,
so it would be classified as opinion. I still think it's objectively true,
though, But any way, thatis a statement of opinion. A statement
of fact would be something like likeJoe blow stole Maria's watch. I saw
(50:16):
him do it, or I heardthat he did it, and I know
for a fact that he did it. That's a factual statement. So even
if you're saying something really horrible aboutsomebody, like I think I think Eric
Swalwell is a jerk, I thinkhe looks like Dexter, I think he's
not very bright. That's a matterof opinion. He can't sue me for
defamation for that because they can't beproven to be objectively false. That's what
(50:42):
the site says, and in EricSwalwell's case, it'd be very hard to
prove that what I just said isobjectively false. So three, the statement
has to be published. It hasto be false. But number three,
it has to be injurious. Soif I make a statement and I publish
it and it's false but it's notinjurious, then you might not have a
(51:05):
case against me. The state mustbe injurious. This means that it caused
some type of harm. So,for example, the site says that Defama
story statement is injurious if it,for example, it gets you fired from
your job, or causes you tolose customers, if you have a business
losing income, or maybe cause youto lose friends and family members, damages
(51:28):
your reputation and damages your relationships.That also counts, or maybe it leads
to you being harassed online. Andthis is going to come into played in
Alex Jones's case. So one guyI was talking to, he was under
the impression that this only applies ifyou lose money. It can, but
it does, but it's not limitedto monetary loss, right, So okay,
(51:53):
so the last one, okay,no, no, Actually, let
me give you some other example.So examples of statements that false. So
these can include examples of statements thatfalsely claim that somebody committed a crime,
or has an infectious disease, orhas done something unnethical. You know,
those types of things could be stateif you use statements of facts related to
(52:15):
those and they're false and they causeinjury, then there might be a case
there. And the last one isnot privileged. So privileged statements basically are
statements made during judicial proceedings by youknow, government officials or maybe by legislatislators
(52:35):
who are engaging in debate on incongressstuff like that. That stuff is privileged,
so it can't be privileged statements.I'm not really sure why that is,
but whatever that, I mean thatthat's one of the criteria. If
it fulfills all of those criteria.You know, the statement is published,
it is false, it is injurious, and it's not privileged. Where that's
(52:57):
where you have a case. Andagain, the injury does not have to
just be monetary. Now, thenlet's look at Alex Jones. Now I'm
not going to go over every singlelie that he told, but I'll give
you just a broad overview just forthose who aren't familiar with the case.
But after the Sandy Hook mass shootinghappened, Alex Jones on his infa Wars
(53:20):
website and some of the journalists thatwork with infa Wars, he spread the
lie that the families whose kids haddied or relatives, because there were teachers
who died in that attack too,he said that they were actors who had
faked the death of their relatives.And he stayed this repeatedly on his program
as if it were a fact,and he would repeated these lies until twenty
(53:45):
twenty, and I believe the shootinghappened in twenty eighteen. I mean,
he was saying things like these kidswere crisis actors, that these kids were
still alive, Like the parents hadto listen to this guy tell his followers
that their kids were still alive whenthey weren't. And not only that,
he told his viewers that these familieswere in on this conspiracy to promote gun
(54:07):
control, because you know, everytime there's a mass shooting, people on
the right says, oh, thatwasn't an organic event that was done by
the government to promote gun control,because there's no way that somebody can just
go nuts and just shoot up aplace. It has to be a government,
a red flag event or way.Am I using the right chim No,
No, it's a I can't rememberwhatever, you know what I'm saying.
(54:29):
So that's the type of conspiracy theoryhe was he was circulating. And
again he was stating this as ifit were in fact, and obviously this
wasn't true. These werelies. Sowe've got published statements that he said on
info Wars, so they were published, they were false because everybody knows that
(54:49):
this shooting really happened. It wasn'tthe governor's There was absolutely no evidence that
the government pulled this off. Theguy who did it killed himself, so
we don't have his test money.And these kids are dead. I mean,
that's just what it is. Thesekids died. And this wasn't a
hoax, this wasn't staged. Thosekids are not alive. Like Alex Jones
(55:12):
said, these parents were not apart of a conspiracy. So the statements
were false. Now let's get tothe injuries. And there were a lot
of them that I'm not even ina list because I couldn't even find them
all, but there were there werea lot of injury, a lot of
injuries here. So in one case, some parents said that because of what
(55:35):
Jones was telling his followers, theirfamily was being harassed online and in person
and forced to move. And Joneshad previously implied that by and by name
in some of these cases that theseparents were paid to pretend that she was
grieving her six year old son's death. Yeah, that's how disgusting he got
(55:55):
with this, so he continued tospread these rumors. Other families said that
they got death threats online in person, being harassed. A lot of these
families had to move multiple times,ten times. In one case, you
know, one of them had theiryou know, the grave of their son
(56:17):
that died. They couldn't even visitit because people might be there to attack
them because they think they're part ofthis conspiracy. In one case, somebody
even peed on the grave of oneof the kids who died because he thought
it was okay because the kid wasreally alive and this was all a scam,
it was all a hoax. Thesepeople have been accosted on the street
(56:38):
by people, harassed on the street, and even moving didn't help, because
they would move and then these peoplewould publish the address again. Now I'm
not saying Alex Jones published the address. I don't think he went that far,
but his followers did. So hislies caused this harassment to happen.
That's injury right there. I mean, And even if you're looking at it
(57:00):
from a monetary's perspective, how muchdoes it cost to move ten times within
a short time period. It's Imean, we're in twenty twenty two,
so I don't know exactly when theystop having to move, But let's just
say it was the four years twentyeighteen to twenty twenty two. You have
to move ten times because these Iwish Darvo would let me cuss on this
platform, but I can. Iget it. But because these people decided
(57:28):
to harass them and to put throughput them through all types of anguish because
of what Alex Jones did. Andobviously his statements were not privileged, so
it fit all of those criteria,which again is why Alex Jones deserves most
of what he's getting. I haveno sympathy for him whatsoever. These were
not statements of opinion. There werestatements of fact. And by the way,
(57:52):
it doesn't require intent, like ifyou say something that is untrue about
somebody else and they're not a publicfee here, because the rules are kind
of different when you're a public figure. The burden of proof is higher.
In that case, it does haveto be malicious, but even if it's
not malicious, you can still besued if you're a regular person. So
(58:15):
that's why Jones is going through whathe's going through. This isn't some plot
by the government. As much asI love to call out the government,
that's not what this is. WhatAlex Jones did was wrong. There's no
way too, There's really no wayto defend it. Again, I agree
that almost a billion dollars is steep, but as far as the other because
(58:38):
he's lost other cases where he's youknow, it's been millions of dollars.
I'm sorry, he deserves what he'sgetting. Again, I have no sympathy
for him. I know a lotof people like him. But again,
I'm not looking at this through apolitical lens. You know, my motto
principles over politics. Right. Myprinciple is, if if you violate these
(58:59):
laws and you get sued and youend up having to pay out, it's
your fault, you know, takepersonal responsibility. Right. So that's why
I wanted to go over this becausea lot of people are defending Alex Jones.
And you know, again, thisisn't really for the people who just
think that the punishment is too high, but it's for people who think that
(59:23):
he's being punished for free speech,that this is a violation of the First
Amendment. And I'm here to saythis is not a violation of the First
Amendment because the First Amendment does notprotect defamation. Now you might think that
it should, and that could beanother that would be a very interesting debate,
a very interesting conversation. But thefact of the matter is it doesn't.
(59:45):
You can't defame somebody and get awaywith it unless they choose not to
sue you. So I'm going toleave it there for right now. I
could go on and on about this, but yeah, I'll just leave it
there. I mean, I'm sureI'll get some responses to this I'll have
to respond to later, but that'sokay. But again, I appreciate everybody
(01:00:07):
for listening. I appreciate you stickingwith me, and again to subscribe if
you haven't already, leave me afive star rating and a review, and
until next time, I will catchyou on the flip side. This has
(01:00:30):
been a presentation of the FCB podcastNetwork, where Real Talk lifts. Visit
is online at FCB podcasts dot com.
Now this is the FCB podcast Network. This is a Fresh Perspective with Jeff
(00:23):
Charles. Alright, alright, alright, welcome back, everybody to another episode
of a Fresh Perspective with Jeff Charleswith your favorite conservatorian me, Jeff Charles
got another buyer episode for you today. We're gonna talk about a few different
things that are big in the newsright now. Some might be a little
(00:43):
bit outrageous, but I think you'llget a kick out of it. I'm
going to talk about the FBI againand how it's been politicized. I'm gonna
talk about a questionable law that's beingintroduced in Virginia's state legislature. And I'm
going to address this whole Alex Jonesthing. I think some of you aren't
(01:04):
going to be too fond of whatI'm going to say on that, but
that's okay. That's what these conversationsare for. But before I go into
everything again, welcome and be sureto subscribe if you haven't done that already.
That way you'll be notified whenever Iupload a new episode. Also,
give me a five star rating onwhatever podcast app you're using. Five stars.
(01:26):
That's going to help me out alot, and also leave me a
comment, leave me a little bitof a leave a little bit of a
review, letting people know why youlove this podcast so much. All right,
deal, great, Okay, solet's get in. Let's get into
this first. I want to talkabout the FBI, and I've been talking
about how the FBI has been isbeing politicized for quite a while now.
(01:51):
And it didn't just start over thepast a couple of years or so.
Right, we saw how a lothow some of their agents behaved the twenty
sixteen presidential election when they were foundto have been spying on Donald Trump,
trying to use the Steele dossier todiscredit him and to discredit his election,
Which is interesting because they're complaining aboutpeople who questioned the twenty twenty election when
(02:15):
they did the same thing with twentysixteen. But since then, it's been
pretty clear that the FBI had athing for Trump like they and they still
do. It still appears that way. I mean, they had that raid
on his home a couple months ago, and you know, we're still waiting
on what's going to happen with thatwhole thing. Again. I'll change my
mind on that if other evidence presentsitself, but for all intents and purposes,
(02:39):
it is coming off as a political, politically motivated endeavor on their part.
But the Bureau's politicization has gone evenbeyond Trump. And you know,
you've also seen over the past fewyears or even just recently, how they
(03:00):
have gone after people, maybe notexplicitly for their views, but for their
views. And this has really comeup with the issue of abortion. Ever
since the Supreme Code, the StreameCode, the Supreme Court struck down Roe
(03:20):
v. Wade, abortion has beena hot topic. And I'm not talking
about the store, the clothing store, but over the past year, we've
seen a lot of violence coming fromthe pro abortion side, and we've seen
a bit of a bias, maybenot a bit of a bias, a
lot of bias on the part ofthe Federal Bureau of Investigation in how it's
(03:44):
going after supposed crimes committed by bothsides. So it is clear that at
this point they are not a neutralenforcer of federal laws. And realistically,
the FBI has always been pluted sizeeven from its inception, if I'm going
to be fair, I mean itwas used against people on the left.
It's been used against people on theright. It was used against black people
(04:06):
in the civil rights movement. Theywere even spying on Aretha Franklin, the
Queen of Soul. So I mean, this bureau has always had issues with
corruption and political bias, but rightnow we can clearly see who their targets
are, which is why you've gota lot of people on the right calling
(04:26):
for the defunding of the FBI.At least they woke up at some point.
Now if they can only apply thatto state and local law enforcement as
well, that'd be great. Now, I'm not talking about defund the police.
I'm talking about rooting out corruption.Right. So here's what's going on
now. As you know, thebureau is not supposed to be engaged in
(04:49):
partisan politics, and they definitely aren'tsupposed to choose which cases to take seriously
based on the politics of the matter. But this is what they've done on
the abortion issue. So last weekthere was video footage that surfaced showing armed
FBI agents arresting a man named PaulVaughan. I believe he was in Tennessee.
(05:12):
He's fifty five years old, andhe had been participating in anti abortion
protests. So he's a prolifer.And when you're looking at the footage,
you can hear a woman, probablyhis wife, asking the agents why they
were banging out her door with gunsand asking them to explain why they were
(05:32):
arresting this man, and the agentsrefused to answer. Now, Vaughn was
just one of eleven pro lifers whoare being indicted in Tennessee because they allegedly
blocked access to an abortion clinic inthe state. And this occurred doing a
(05:56):
protest in March, not March ofthis year, March of twenty twenty one.
That's right. They arrested these peopleand they are indicting them for something
that they did in March last year. Now, this is apparently our esteemed
FBI doing yeoman's work and keeping ussafe from by taking these dangerous pro life
(06:23):
protesters off the streets. I mean, imagine how many lives have been saved
because these people were being hauled tojail. And again, von was only
one of these individuals. The othersgot a not so friendly visit from armed
FBI agents as well. Okay,now, I know that there are laws
(06:44):
in most states against blocking access toabortion facilities. It's not against a lot
of protests the First Amendment protects that, but I guess you're not allowed to
prevent people from entering physically. Now. I don't know that the details of
all these cases, and and I'mnot sure whether they actually broke the law
or not, but the idea thatyou wait over a year, like a
(07:08):
year and a half to an effectarrest, affect and arrest, and it
just comes off a little bit suspiciousto me, especially given the fact that
we have seen a lot of politicalbias coming from the bureau. Now,
meanwhile, remember all those of firebombings and acts of vandalism that pro abortion
(07:29):
activists have been perpetrating against pro lifeorganizations like crisis pregnancy centers, advocacy groups,
churches. They've been firebombing them,They've been vandalizing and destroying the parts
of these buildings, and so farthey haven't escalated to targeting humans. But
that is the only logical conclusion,especially if nothing is done about it.
(07:54):
And speaking of which, the FBIhas not arrested a single person in connection
with these acts of violence and vandalism, not a single one. In fact,
they aren't even talking about it.So I read an article I believe
this was in the Daily signal andthe Wisconsin Family Action of this is a
(08:18):
group and that is a pro life. It was one of the first to
be vandalized, and it happened shortlyafter the draft opinion coming from the Supreme
Court was leaked to the public basicallysaying that they were going to overturn Roe
v. Wade. So they firebombed the place and they even spray painted
(08:39):
a message on one of the walls. It said, quote, if abortions
aren't safe, then you aren't either. Now this was done by a pro
abortion in my opinion, domestic terroristgroup called Jane's Revenge. They took credit
for it and also for several otheracts of vandalism. They posted some of
these things online. They reached alsoreached out to a journalist name Robert Evans,
(09:03):
who is who is a lefty,but he basically just relayed the message
that that that they sent to him. I'm not saying he condones this.
And by the way, he's gota great podcast called Behind the Bastards.
You should check that out. Ifyou're a conservative. You won't agree with
the political views, but it's veryeducational, very interesting anyway. But I
digress, Yes, I did.I just plugged a left wing podcast,
(09:26):
but it's it's great. So anyway, Jane's revenge. In their message,
they said that this was quote,just a warning, and they promised more
violence. They said, quote,we demand the disbanding of all anti choice
establishments, fake clinics, and violentanti choice groups within the next thirty days.
(09:50):
And they've carried out other acts ofviolence. And they're not the only
ones. There are other pro abortionactivists who are carrying out these acts.
And I will get to the numbersin a set. But the FBI showed
up after the fire bombing. TheATF showed up as well, and you
know, they looked around to theirthing, and since they left, they've
(10:13):
said nothing about it. So JulineAppling, she's the president of Wisconsin Family
Counsel, and she told the DailySignal that she has heard quote nothing from
the FBI after they left our officeon the day of the attack May eighth.
Now, she said she wasn't surewhether whether the FBI or ATF took
(10:33):
pictures of the scene because they werebehind behind closed doors all day long.
And she said that she has alsonever received anything in writing. Now.
She did say that the bureau calledone time to check on a phone number,
and that was mid to late May, and then she said, quote
crickets since then now. In anotherDaily Signal report, the author noted that
(10:58):
quote the Federal Bureau of Investigation willnot share whether it has made any arrests
related to attacks on pro life centers, organizations and Catholic churches following the leak
of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roev. Wave Now, the report said,
at least eighty three Catholic churches andseventy three pregnancy resource centers or pro
(11:20):
life organizations have been attacked since thedraft opinion was leaked in May, so
that's over one hundred and these centersand organizations have also told The Daily Signal
that they haven't heard anything from federalauthorities on the matter. There no updates,
no questions, no nothing. It'sa wall of silence coming from the
(11:45):
Bureau. Now. The FBI releaseda statement to The Daily Signal that,
ironically enough, was basically the samestatement that they issued to the Daily Wire
on this matter, and it saidthat it is investigating quote a series of
attack and threats targeting pregnancy resource centers, faith based organizations, and reproductive health
clinics across the country, as wellas to judicial buildings, including the US
(12:09):
Supreme Court. They said they quotetake all violence and threats of violence very
seriously and is working closely with ourlaw enforcement partners at the national, state,
and local levels to investigate these incidents. Yeah, I'm gonna call BS.
I'm called BS on this. Theseare lies. They are lyne and
(12:30):
the truth and in them. Here'smy thing. This is the Federal Bureau
of Investigation that we're talking about here. We're not talking about some small law
enforcement agency in a podunk rural areaof the country. Not trying to disrespect
them, but I'm just saying theFBI, this is the federal government of
these here, United States of America. This agency has a near unlimited supply
(12:54):
of resources that it could bring tobear on this matter. Look at how
easily they rounded up the people whowere involved in the January six riots at
the US Capitol building. There werethousands of people in that area, and
they managed to track so many ofthese people down from different states, different
localities, and they were able toround them up. There's no reason why
(13:16):
they haven't been able to make asingle or not even one person in connection
with these crimes. Now, Ican understand that they had gotten some people
and then maybe not others. Imean, I don't expect them to be
perfect, but if they were actuallytrying to find out who is carrying this
stuff out with the resources they have, they could have found some people.
(13:39):
Come on, now, I mean, it's interesting because they're prioritizing this supposed
threat of white supremacy because that's whatthey've been trying to sell us on,
and whistle blowers are saying that they'recooking the numbers on that to categorize cases
as white supremacists violence or white supremacistcases that don't really have much to do
(14:00):
with white supremacy. They have even, according to these whistleblowers, they have
allegedly allocated agents and resources from childabuse cases and put it towards finding rooting
out these threats of white supremacist violence, ostensibly to justify their claim that domestic
extremism coming from the right is thebiggest threat to national security, because that's
(14:22):
what they've been claiming over the pastfew years. And it sounds like they're
not coming up with a whole lot. The demand is more than the supply,
it seems I'm not saying that there'sno white supremacist violence. We saw
what happened in Buffalo, New Yorkand in other cases too, so I'm
not saying there's there's absolutely none,but I'm not convinced that there is enough
to say to make the claim thatthis is some dire threat to national security.
(14:46):
Now again, I'm willing to beproven wrong if other evidence comes up.
But I've been I've been waiting,and it hasn't happened. Right,
So to put it simply, thesepeople are lying. They are not interested
in dealing with the people who areresponsible for this violence and vandalism. They're
not making an effort. But theyhave all the time in the world to
(15:09):
go after these pro life protesters fromlast March, who may or may not
have been blocking an entryway to anabortion clink. And we don't even know
if they actually physically stopped people fromgoing in. I'm suspecting they didn't,
but these folks could be. Imean, I don't know what the punishment
(15:30):
is for it, so I don'tknow if this is punishable by prison or
by a fine or something like that. But the fact of the matter is,
our federal government is devoting resources tothese people when there are others who
are actually engaging in acts of violence. I'm glad that they haven't gone after
people yet, but there's already aninstance of a person of an old woman
(15:52):
being shot because of an argument overabortion. She was handing out pamphlets that
was encouraging people to go against ameasure in her state that would have supported
abortion, which is her right todo that, and she got shot.
Now it wasn't by one of thesegroups, but whatever, I mean,
it's only going to be a matterof time before they escalate, especially since
(16:15):
a lot of these laws are goinghave been going into effect in red states
that are restricting abortion. But here'sthe thing, Well, what I mean,
what can be done about it?I mean, the GOP would have
to hold the FBI accountable when theyhave enough power. I'm sure they're going
to take the House, possibly eventhe Senate. But even then, are
they going to have enough influence toactually do something about this. I'm not
(16:40):
sure that they will. I mean, we might have to wait until there's
another Republican president in the White Housein twenty twenty four, because that would
be under his purview. And whetherthat's Trump or someone else. That's what's
going to have to happen. Anduntil then, we're just going to deal
with the FBI being corrupt. AndI hate to say it, but it's
true. I mean, I'm Ithought a lot of the stuff is getting
(17:00):
out there. I'm glad that thesewhistleblowers are coming forward. There's a lot
of scandals going on at the bureau. Maybe I'll do a segment on that
one day, just all the stuffthat's been happening with these whistleblowers, because
I've been writing about it, butI haven't you talked about it verbally yet.
So that's the latest on what yourFBI is up to. Dear listener.
(17:22):
I'll leave it there for right now, but I know that there will
be more. But until then,I'll see you on the flip side.
Stay tuned. These days, itseems like everybody's talking, but no one
is actually listening to the things they'resaying. Critical thinking isn't dead, but
it's definitely low on oxygen. Joinme Kia Davis on Jeff. Listen to
(17:44):
yourself every week as we reason throughissues big and small, critique our own
ideas, and learn to draw ourtalking points all the way out to their
logical conclusions. Subscribe to Just Listento Yourself with Kia Davis, an FCB
radio podcast on Apple, Spotify,iHeart, or wherever you get your podcasts.
(18:07):
All right, welcome back to afresh perspective, Virkomen, come and
see. Thanks for hanging with me. Appreciate all of my listeners. And
in this segment, I'm going totalk about a little something going on in
Virginia which has kind of been aground zero of sorts when it comes to
(18:30):
the debate over transing children and theproblematic stuff that they're trying to teach in
K through twelve classrooms. That's wherea lot of the lot of a lot
of the protest has taken place.I mean, it's been going on all
over the country, but the issuewas pretty egregious when it comes to Loudon
County, Virginia. And as youknow, Republican was elected Governor Glenn Youngcan
(18:56):
back in November of last Yeah,and he's been a kind of he's been
following through on his promises to dealwith these issues, to stop these school
districts from trying to indoctrinate children intofar leftist progressive so called progressive ideology when
it comes to issues like race,or sexuality or gender identity, and so
(19:22):
he has been implementing some policy inthat regard, and of course the Democrats
in the state aren't too happy aboutit. And it's funny. I actually
just got done talking about this ona Victory news You should check out my
appearances there, you know, I'llput them up on my YouTube channel,
I suppose. But I saw thisstory yesterday. It was actually sent to
(19:48):
me by Ian Pryor, who isa senior advisor for America First Legal.
He's also a part of a groupcalled Citizens for Sanity. This guy wears
a lot of hats, but hesent me this story. And you know
what, I wasn't surprised by it. As a matter of fact, I've
been warning about it over the pastmore than a year or so, and
now they're making another push for thissoul. So let's get into the store.
(20:11):
Let's get into this. And Iactually wrote an article about this on
red state dot com and it's noteven in the pa behind the paywall,
so you can go and read itat your leisure. But you still should
you subscribe to red State because youcan read all my VIP articles where I
put my deepest, most, inner, most intimate thoughts. Anyway, all
(20:33):
right, I'll stop goofing off.So a Virginia lawmaker. She's part of
the House of Delegates, which isI guess kind of like their House of
Representatives. Her name is Elizabeth Guzman. And if she gets her way,
parents who do not affirm their child'ssexual orientation or gender identity, like if
(20:57):
they're dealing with gender dysphoria, ifthey do not affirm these things to the
extent that she wants them to,they could face felony or misdemeanor charges if
this woman gets her way. Now, Elizabeth Gooseman is a social worker,
but she's also a part of thelegislature, the state legislature, and she
(21:21):
reintroduced a bill because she did thisin twenty twenty the first time and it
didn't go anywhere, but she's tryingagain. And this bill is ostensibly designed
to protect LGBTQ children from their evilparents who may not affirm their choices when
(21:41):
it comes again to their sexuality andgender identity. Here's what the measure would
do. It would expand the state'sdefinition of child abuse to include to include
parents who are not in alignment withprogressive viewpoints on these matters sexuality, gender
(22:02):
identity. So she had an interviewwith ABC seven News, a local news
affiliate, and she said, quote, if the child shares with those mandated
reporters what they are going through,we are talking about not only physical abuse
or mental abuse. What the jobof that mandated reporter is to inform child
(22:23):
protective services? Right? You know, we just had some whack job left
wing media activists try to call CPSon a candidate running for office in a
different state. I believe because shewas supposedly teaching her child how to be
a racist, because she said HappyColumbus Day. We already know that these
(22:48):
people want to use the government againstparents who don't deal with their children the
way the way the government says theyshould. Now, Guzman continued, she
said, quote and then that's howeverybody gets involved. There's also an investigation
in place that is not only froma social worker, but there's also a
police investigation before we make the decisionthat there is going to be a CPS
(23:14):
charge. Is So, what shewants to do is make it easier for
these school districts to enforce their ideology, not just on the child, but
also on the parents because right now, the school districts can't do anything to
the parents. Now they can lieto them, they can help their children
transition to the opposite gender supposedly becausethat's not possible. But they can do
(23:40):
this without the parents' knowledge. Ifthe kid says that they don't want their
parents to know, they won't tellthem, and they'll even lie to them.
They'll use the kid's birth name andbirth pronouns in front of the parents,
and then once the parents are gone, they'll use the child's chosen name
and chosen pronouns. So there's alot of deception involved here, but this
bill, if passed, would givethem even more teeth because they can say,
(24:03):
oh, well, parent, you'renot affirming your kids gender ideology or
your kids chosen gender. It lookslike you're going to get a visit from
CPS and the police. Right that'swhat this is intended to do now.
When she was asked, when Guzmanwas asked what the penalties would be if
the authorities determined that a parent isnot affirming enough of their LGBTQ child,
(24:29):
that's when Guzman said that it couldbe a felony or a misdemeanor. So
she said, quote, well,we first have to complete an investigation.
It could be a felony, itcould be a misdemeanor. But we know
that CPS could could harm your employment, could harm their education because nowadays many
people do a CPS database search beforeoffering employment. Now, then I don't
(24:55):
think that these are the only consequencesthat she wants. But this is bad
enough, isn't it that you wouldharm somebody's ability to get an education or
employment because they don't believe in theLGBTQ ideas that the progressives want them to
believe in. But it's none oftheir business, right, I'll get to
that in a second. Let's justkeep going through the story. Now,
(25:18):
you guys already know how I feelabout it, but I'll lay it out
at a little bit better. Theinterviewer also asked this state delegate about critics
who say that this bill would essentiallyessentially criminalize parents, and then the reporter
asked how she would respond to thatcriticism. She said, quote, no,
it's not. It's educating parents becausethe law tells you the dues and
(25:42):
don'ts. So this law is tellingyou do not abuse your children because they
are LGBTQ. Now here's the thing. Virginia already has laws on the books
to prevent child abuse. So regardlessof the reason as to why you're abusing
(26:04):
your child, you can still beprosecuted. You can still the authorities will
still deal with you, which theyshould if you're actually abusing your child.
But again, what Guzman is tryingto do here is expand the definition of
the term child abuse to include thingsthat aren't necessarily abuse. But this isn't
about abuse. This is again aboutprogressives enforcing their ideology. See, they
(26:30):
don't work through persuasion, right,we know this. Progressives, the hard
left does not try to get theirway through persuasion through having conversations because they
know their ideas suck, so theyhave to do with through force. That's
why they're all about censorship. That'swhy they're okay with the fact that the
Biden administration is working with companies tosuppress conservative views online. It's why they
(26:56):
shout down speakers on college campuses whodon't agree with them. It's why they
try to cancel anybody who expresses apoint of view that they don't like.
And it's also why they want touse the government as much as they possibly
can to force their ideas on therest of the nation, and this is
just yet another attempt to do that. Now. The reporter also brought up
(27:21):
the First Amendment protections related to religiousfreedom right Congress shall not pass any laws
infringing on the right to practice one'sreligion. Right. Here's her response to
that. This isn't funny. I'mnot laughing because it's funny, But here's
her response. The Bible. Shesays, quote okay, okay, okay.
(27:44):
Quote the Bible says to accept everyonefor who they are. So that's
what I tell people when they askedme that question, and that's what I
will continue to tell people. Youknow, we all have a commitment to
God, and for those believers outthere, we know that there's life afterlife
and there's going to be a conversationbetween that person and God, and that's
(28:07):
what we're after to go by whatthe Bible says. It is not my
job to judge anyone. It ismy job to help people and to possibly
threaten them with jail time and notbeing able to get employment if they don't
do what I say. Okay.I may or may not have added that
last part, but the rest sheactually said this tell me that you don't
read the Bible. Without telling methat you don't read the Bible, that's
(28:30):
what she's doing here. I mean, And if you're a Christian and you're
listening to this, you already knowthe counter to this argument, right,
Yes, you do. God callsus to love people. That doesn't mean
that we have to accept everything thatthey do, right, I mean,
there's nowhere in the Bible where itsays that. And there's definitely nothing in
(28:52):
the Bible that says you should bethreatening people with the police because they don't
raise their kids the way you wantthem to. Again, there's a difference
between abuse and what we're actually talkingabout here. Now. I actually pulled
up the law itself, and Ipulled up the passage that she wants to
add, because it goes through allthe different criteria that defines what child abuse
(29:17):
is under Virginia law. And itfurther so, what she would do is
what this is what she would beadding on. It would define the term
as behavior that quote creates or inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or
allows to be created or inflicted uponsuch child a physical or mental injury,
on the basis of the child's genderidentity or sexual orientation. But again,
(29:42):
if you read that law, italready disallows this. You cannot abuse your
child in Virginia. There are lawsagainst that, regardless of the reason why
you're doing it. But again,she's expanding the definition because she wants to
include parents that aren't necessarily abusing theirkids. But they're not. And if
they have a daughter named Sally,they don't approve of him, of her
(30:03):
saying okay, now my name issam and I don't mean Samantha, I
mean like Samuel the dude's name.Yeah, all right, So here.
Now, obviously there are people takingan issue with this, and I reached
out to a few different people.Nicole Neelie, president of Parents Defending Education,
(30:23):
which is a great organization to support. It's a parential rights advocacy group,
and they have filed a bunch oflawsuits against a lot of this stuff
that's being taught in schools, whetherit's on race or sexuality or gender identity,
and they've been winning actually, sothey're doing very good work. So
I spoke with Nicole Neely, whoI have actually had on this podcast twice.
Now you can check those out onmy YouTube channel, same name,
(30:45):
A Fresh Perspective with Jeff Charles,and she told me, quote, regardless
of what Delegate Guzman may believe,Virginia parents have a fundamental right to direct
the upbringing of their children, andwe have no intention of surrendering those rights
to her or any other education bureaucrat. I have a feeling that she may
(31:07):
have wanted to say something else there, but she you know, you got
to be you know, politically correct, She's got to be diplomatic. But
she's right, She's right. Thisis nothing more than trying to interfere with
the way parents raise their children.So that shouldn't be surrendered. And that's
the thing that's really what this isabout. This is about parental rights.
And actually I'll get to that ina second. I also spoke with Ian
(31:30):
Pryor, the person who sent methe story. Again. He's a senior
advisor at America First Legal. I'vehad him on my program twice. Check
that out on my YouTube channel.This guy that means the stuff that he
brings up, the stuff that youknow that we need to know about.
I'll say that, and he said, quote, as shocking and evil as
this is it is not surprising schoolsin Virginia are keeping parents out of the
(31:53):
loop when their children tell staff thatthey want to identify as a different sex.
The very reason schools are doing thisis because they believe that parents failure
to affirm is abuse, and thatis the crux of the matter. See,
to these people, abuse isn't slappingyour kid, punching your kid,
(32:15):
verbally abusing them, calling them allkinds of names, tearing them down every
day. They don't believe that that'sall that child abuses. And of course
there's more two with them that I'mnot trying to downplay child abuse here,
that's not what's going on. Butthey believe that if you don't think that
your daughter named Myra should become manny, that's abuse right there. That alone
(32:38):
is abuse, even if you're stillloving on your kid. And I've talked
to mothers who have gone through this. Gabrielle Clark, her daughter's school try
to pull this crap on her,try to encourage her to believe that she
was really a boy. And Gabbyhad to go through a whole process to
(33:00):
get her out of that, andshe ended up having to move to a
different state. And now she's abig activist on this stuff. She was
just in Anaheim protesting, and she'svery active on social media. And guess
what Twitter did today, They suspendedher account. Again, progressives don't work
by persuasion because their ideas suck.They go through force. But I digress.
(33:22):
Prior also said that this bill isa natural progression from what the woke
left is pushing, and he said, make no mistake, they will lose
this fight. Politicians that push itwill be defeated. Organizations that try to
separate children from caring parents will beprosecuted and sued. The sick and twisted
(33:46):
agenda of these activists will be arelic of the past, and they will
join the ranks of history's villains.And he's right. But even if we're
looking at the here and now,Guzman's bill is not going to get past.
It's just not going to happen.She's gonna lose, and she probably
probably knows it. Even Democrats havecome out against it. Representative Abigail Spanburger,
(34:10):
and I'll give you a little bitof tea on her. She's a
Democrat, and she said this billwill be dead in the water. She's
like she didn't agree with it.She didn't think that this was a good
idea. But one of her surrogatesand I wrote about this too the other
day. Just the other day,I wrote about this. One of her
surrogates was at a meeting at somebody'shome and said the quiet part out loud
(34:30):
and said that he believes that children, children whose parents don't affirm their gender
identity should be removed from the home. They want to take your kids away,
guys. I'm not exaggerating. Heactually said this. These people want
to remove your children. But whyBecause it's a fundamental difference in thinking between
(34:52):
progressives and sane people. And Ispecifically say progressives because I think that most
people who've democrat would agree with youand I on this. They would see.
The thing is, these people,again, they don't think your kids
belong to you. They believe thatyour children should belong to the state,
(35:13):
and you're just caretakers. That's whatthey had their way, if they could
have, if they could wave amagic wand and have their way tomorrow,
that is exactly what the society wouldlook like. The government would be raising
your children and you can kind ofjust be a caretaker, but you have
to do with the way they tellyou to do it. Otherwise they'll throw
you in jail, or they willsend CPS to your home. It's it's
(35:37):
evil. It is nothing less thanwicked. But here, this is why
I talk about this so much.I mean, don't think that I don't
get sick of talking about this theonly way. Oh, I'll walk that
back. I don't get sick oftalking about it because it's too important.
But don't think that I don't thatI like having to talk about this in
(35:58):
the first place. I should beable to talk about policy and other stuff,
you know, immigration, and Ido. But I talk about this
issue so much because it is thatimportant, Like I've always said, Like
I said on the last episode,this is one of the biggest issues that
the country is facing that nobody knowsabout. So I am trying to do
my part to expose it as muchas possible. And I've got up and
(36:19):
there's there are other people doing ittoo. Brandan Showalter at the Christian Post
him and I became friends recently overthis issue. He's been on my podcast
twice. I met him in persona few weeks ago here in Austin.
But there are a lot of otherpeople who are pushing back against this,
because this isn't just about transing thekids, although that's bad enough. This
is about what they want to theirend goal to control as much as your
(36:45):
life as possible, to control yourparenting. Imagine that that is what these
people want. So, yes,this bill is going to get slapped down.
Yes, sure, but we shouldnot assume that this is not going
to come back, because it is. This is the end goal of what
they want. If anything, wecan look at this as a test run
(37:07):
because again, she knows that thisbill is not going to pass, and
they are bent on pushing their genderideology on the rest of the public,
regardless of how we feel about it. If they have to threaten you with
criminal penalties or use the state tokidnap your children, because that is what
they would be doing, then sobe it. This is yet another reason
(37:30):
why we have to squash this crapas soon as possible. We've got to
squash it in the culture, insociety, at the legislation. We need
a full court press on this becauseif we don't, we're going to have
even more casualties. And we've alreadygot enough as it is, and we're
going to see more of these inthe next one, two, three,
(37:52):
four, five, six, seven, eight, nine to ten years.
We're going to see more people whogot transition that want to go back.
And we're going to even see peopleand I hate to say it, who
may have committed suicide because they tookpuberty blockers, or women who are girls
who got their breast cut off attwelve thirteen years old because they thought that
that would fix their mental health.I could go on about this, but
(38:15):
I'll leave it right there for rightnow, give us a second, going
to pay some bills and I willbe right back. This is Darvy O
King Penmorl, co host of TheOutlaws radio show, and if you haven't
heard our show before, check outthis clip JD Vance. One of the
things I think we have to doon the Republican side, because we've got
(38:36):
the white working class and I thinkwe've got them solid, is start to
attract you know, the black andI guess now the Latina working class into
our coalition. Because I think wedo that and we serve those voters well,
I mean we could we could becomethe majority party in this country for
a generation if we actually see theopportunity and get what I tell a lot
of my friends. You know,we're a little older than I. I'm
(38:57):
thirty seven years old. I'm gonnasay, well, you know, we
really want to get back to thecountry club set in the Republican Party.
And I say, look, atthe end of the day, like we're
going to be a stronger party ifwe accept that the country club set maybe
is never coming back, but weacquire some of those black and Hispanic working
class voters into our coalition, like, let the country club set go,
you know, let them use theirpreferred pronouns and obsess about racial issues and
(39:22):
gender issues because they're all crazy.And I think that this is something that
actually unites a lot of working classwhite and black folks, is we just
want to live in a country wherewe don't have to obsessively worry about everything
that we say. Subscribe to TheOutlaws Radio Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeart Radio, or wherever you getyour podcast. That's out Laws The
(39:47):
Outlaws Radio Show, an FCB Radiopodcast. All right, y'all, welcome
on back to this final segment ofA Fresh perspect Active with Jeff Charles.
Thank you so much for listening.I am grateful for Ali yal guys are
awesome, and just want to remindyou please subscribe to this podcast if you
(40:09):
haven't already, and give me afive star rating on whatever podcast app that
you're using. I really appreciate anyand all support. And if you have
ten seconds, because that's as longas that's how long this takes, just
leave me a few sentences of acomment or a review, letting people know
why you love this podcast. Allof those things help me out immensally,
(40:30):
especially with the algorithms, especially ifyou're if you're a communist and you're listening
to this on an Apple device andyou're using Apple Podcasts to listen to this
podcast. I'm just kidding. I'mfine with you Apple people. I just
prefer Android, all right. Okay, Now, don't don't leave. Come
back, come back, come back, come back, come back. We
(40:52):
can all get along. We canall coexist with one another, all right.
Okay, So, speaking of otherunpopular opinions, let's talk about Alex
Jones on what I think of thiswhole case. Because it ain't gonna be
popular. Well, I don't know, maybe it is, maybe I'm underestimating
it. But here's the thing.You know you've probably already heard the news.
(41:15):
Alex Jones lost yet another court caseafter being sued for defamation for comments
deceptive comments, lies that he toldabout the mass shooting in Sandy Hook at
at at an elementary school. Andhe's been sued by a bunch of different
(41:36):
plaintiffs, and you know, somein Texas, some in other states.
This one was in Connecticut and itinvolved some of the parents and other relatives
of the kids of some of thekids who died there. And you know,
he lost a case, obviously,but the judge awarded almost one billion
(42:00):
dollars to the plaintiffs that Alex Joneshas to pay. Now, before I
get into the rest of this,I'm just going to start out by saying,
for those who say that one billiondollars is too much, it's excessive,
I agree with you. I do. I mean, I mean,
(42:22):
what he did was horrible. I'mnot going to downplay what he did because
it was disgusting. So I thinkI'm only going to make people angry if
you think that it was okay whathe did. But what he did was
wrong in my opinion and obviously inthe opinion of the jury. But a
billion dollars. I mean, comeon out. First off, the dude
is aren't going to pay a billiondollars. He doesn't have a billion dollars
(42:43):
and he's never gone well, Idon't know, maybe at some point he
will, but he's not gonna havea billion dollars, So the families aren't
going to get that. I thinkthis was done to send a message,
and it's not a very good one. I think this could have been politically
motivated, just like you know,because everything that we look at has to
be viewed through a political lens.It can't just be whether this is right
(43:04):
or wrong. It has to bewhether this is right or left right.
Hey, I just coined a newphrase. I'm going to use that more
often in this situation. It's notabout what's right or wrong, it's about
what's right or left? Yes,all right, you know see I come
up with the stuff without even tryingto. But I digress. Anyway,
let's get into this. So,yeah, I agree with what I'm about
to say isn't really directed at thepeople, was directed at everybody. But
(43:28):
I agree that almost a billion dollarsis excessive. That's way too much.
But he does deserve at least stillmost of what he's getting. But here's
the reason I'm talking about this.And I was going to write an article
about it, but I don't know. I still might. But the reason
I wanted to talk about this isbecause it brings up an opportunity to kind
(43:51):
of educate a little bit on thesubject of defamation. And I was talking
about this on Twitter last night andI realized that a lot of people don't
really know how defamation law works.Now I'm not a lawyer, I'm not
an attorney, but I am ajournalist, so I have to understand how
how these laws work, and thereare differences depending on what state you're in.
But even before I became a journalist, when I used to do a
(44:13):
lot of freelance writing, I usedto do a lot of freelance writing for
law firms and defamation was one ofthe things that I had to write about,
so I got very familiar with thetopic. So I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not pretending to be, butI do have at least a rudimentary
understanding of how defamation works as itrelates to tort law. And when you
(44:35):
look at this case, you cansee that it fits it does fit.
And people are claiming that this isa free speech issue or a First Amendment
issue, but it's not. See, the First Amendment does not protect defamation.
And you know, if you're listeningto this, you probably already know
the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech. It protects most speech, and protects
(44:55):
way more speech than other countries aregranting to their citizens or protecting for their
citizens. But defamation is one ofthose things that you can't do. And
again, a lot of people aren'treally familiar with what defamation is and how
it works. So I want toagain, I want to talk about this
because this is these are issues.These are issues that affect other prominent news
(45:20):
stories as well. You look atNick Sandman with the Covington kids, who
were defamed basically by CNN and otheractivist media outlets and portrayed as racist,
and Nick Sandman sued and you know, a lot of those outlets had to
settle. I don't think any ofthem actually went to trial, but he
was suing him for defamation because ofwhat they did to him. And you
(45:44):
know, and then the activist mediadoes this to a lot of people,
but not everybody has the wherewithal orthe resources to file lawsuits at which they
did, because a lot of peoplewere doing the what aboutism thing? Well,
what about when the media lied aboutthis or that? Oh you know
what, I'm not a fan ofwhat a boutism? But you're right,
I mean, and media outlets happenssuit for defamation successfully before, but I
(46:06):
don't think it happens nearly enough.I would advocate for making it easier to
hold these outlets accountable. And Idon't care if it's left wing or right
wing. If it's Fox News andthey lie about somebody, they should be
held to account because that's not somethingthat we should be encouraging in our media
outlets. But I digress again,So let's get into this. Let's get
(46:27):
into Alex Jones. So, whenit comes to speech, you have the
right to criticize people. You havethe right to criticize your government. You
have the right to criticize I don'tknow, Lizzo or Brad Pitt. You
can criticize your neighbor. You cansay what you want and let you scroll
(46:53):
down here. And basically, ifit's defamation, there are a few different
types of criteria. So let mejust define a term really quick and This
is coming from a website called Nolo. I've gone there many times to understand
the legalities of various issues, defamationbeing one of them. So, the
(47:13):
defamation occurs when an individual makes afalse statement. It has to be false
verbally or in writing about someone elsethat damages that person's reputation. And like
I said earlier, these laws aredifferent from state to state, but there
is still the basic principle of defamation. It is a statement that you make
(47:37):
a false statement. It has tobe false, again, whether it's verbal
or written. If it's written,then it's referred to as libel. So
if I write an article and Imake something up about some politician I don't
like, and it's clearly false,and while I'm getting ahead of myself,
then that's libel. But if Isay something on my podcast or on a
(47:57):
YouTube video, that is slander.Right. So, a plaintiff suing for
defamation in order to bring the caseand have a chance of winning, all
of all of the things that I'mabout to list have to be true.
All of these criteria must be metto have a chance of winning a defamation
(48:19):
suit. The first criteria is thatthe defendant or the person who was accused
published a statement about the plaintiff.Two the statement was false. Three the
statement was injurious. Four the statementwas not privileged. So let's go with
(48:43):
the first one. Published. Now, this doesn't mean that it has to
be in a magazine or a newspaperor a book. It just has to
be said or written in a waythat the public could hear it. So
again, if I say something aboutmy podcast and people listen to it,
then it's published. If I goout in front of somebody's store and start
yelling about how the owner is racistwhen they're not, or that they engaged
(49:07):
in racial crimes or racial discrimination andpeople hurt it walking by, or maybe
a hild to sign, that's published. So it can be on TV anywhere,
at a town hall, speech meeting, or even at the site says
during cocktail party chatter. So let'sgo to the second one. False.
(49:31):
The statement has to be false onlyfalse. Statements of fact can be defamatory.
Note statements of fact. That doesn'tmean opinion. Like here's the statement
of opinion. Rosario Dawson is thefinest actress in the world. Now I
(49:51):
would say that's a fact, butI mean people might disagree with that,
so it would be classified as opinion. I still think it's objectively true,
though, But any way, thatis a statement of opinion. A statement
of fact would be something like likeJoe blow stole Maria's watch. I saw
(50:16):
him do it, or I heardthat he did it, and I know
for a fact that he did it. That's a factual statement. So even
if you're saying something really horrible aboutsomebody, like I think I think Eric
Swalwell is a jerk, I thinkhe looks like Dexter, I think he's
not very bright. That's a matterof opinion. He can't sue me for
defamation for that because they can't beproven to be objectively false. That's what
(50:42):
the site says, and in EricSwalwell's case, it'd be very hard to
prove that what I just said isobjectively false. So three, the statement
has to be published. It hasto be false. But number three,
it has to be injurious. Soif I make a statement and I publish
it and it's false but it's notinjurious, then you might not have a
(51:05):
case against me. The state mustbe injurious. This means that it caused
some type of harm. So,for example, the site says that Defama
story statement is injurious if it,for example, it gets you fired from
your job, or causes you tolose customers, if you have a business
losing income, or maybe cause youto lose friends and family members, damages
(51:28):
your reputation and damages your relationships.That also counts, or maybe it leads
to you being harassed online. Andthis is going to come into played in
Alex Jones's case. So one guyI was talking to, he was under
the impression that this only applies ifyou lose money. It can, but
it does, but it's not limitedto monetary loss, right, So okay,
(51:53):
so the last one, okay,no, no, Actually, let
me give you some other example.So examples of statements that false. So
these can include examples of statements thatfalsely claim that somebody committed a crime,
or has an infectious disease, orhas done something unnethical. You know,
those types of things could be stateif you use statements of facts related to
(52:15):
those and they're false and they causeinjury, then there might be a case
there. And the last one isnot privileged. So privileged statements basically are
statements made during judicial proceedings by youknow, government officials or maybe by legislatislators
(52:35):
who are engaging in debate on incongressstuff like that. That stuff is privileged,
so it can't be privileged statements.I'm not really sure why that is,
but whatever that, I mean thatthat's one of the criteria. If
it fulfills all of those criteria.You know, the statement is published,
it is false, it is injurious, and it's not privileged. Where that's
(52:57):
where you have a case. Andagain, the injury does not have to
just be monetary. Now, thenlet's look at Alex Jones. Now I'm
not going to go over every singlelie that he told, but I'll give
you just a broad overview just forthose who aren't familiar with the case.
But after the Sandy Hook mass shootinghappened, Alex Jones on his infa Wars
(53:20):
website and some of the journalists thatwork with infa Wars, he spread the
lie that the families whose kids haddied or relatives, because there were teachers
who died in that attack too,he said that they were actors who had
faked the death of their relatives.And he stayed this repeatedly on his program
as if it were a fact,and he would repeated these lies until twenty
(53:45):
twenty, and I believe the shootinghappened in twenty eighteen. I mean,
he was saying things like these kidswere crisis actors, that these kids were
still alive, Like the parents hadto listen to this guy tell his followers
that their kids were still alive whenthey weren't. And not only that,
he told his viewers that these familieswere in on this conspiracy to promote gun
(54:07):
control, because you know, everytime there's a mass shooting, people on
the right says, oh, thatwasn't an organic event that was done by
the government to promote gun control,because there's no way that somebody can just
go nuts and just shoot up aplace. It has to be a government,
a red flag event or way.Am I using the right chim No,
No, it's a I can't rememberwhatever, you know what I'm saying.
(54:29):
So that's the type of conspiracy theoryhe was he was circulating. And
again he was stating this as ifit were in fact, and obviously this
wasn't true. These werelies. Sowe've got published statements that he said on
info Wars, so they were published, they were false because everybody knows that
(54:49):
this shooting really happened. It wasn'tthe governor's There was absolutely no evidence that
the government pulled this off. Theguy who did it killed himself, so
we don't have his test money.And these kids are dead. I mean,
that's just what it is. Thesekids died. And this wasn't a
hoax, this wasn't staged. Thosekids are not alive. Like Alex Jones
(55:12):
said, these parents were not apart of a conspiracy. So the statements
were false. Now let's get tothe injuries. And there were a lot
of them that I'm not even ina list because I couldn't even find them
all, but there were there werea lot of injury, a lot of
injuries here. So in one case, some parents said that because of what
(55:35):
Jones was telling his followers, theirfamily was being harassed online and in person
and forced to move. And Joneshad previously implied that by and by name
in some of these cases that theseparents were paid to pretend that she was
grieving her six year old son's death. Yeah, that's how disgusting he got
(55:55):
with this, so he continued tospread these rumors. Other families said that
they got death threats online in person, being harassed. A lot of these
families had to move multiple times,ten times. In one case, you
know, one of them had theiryou know, the grave of their son
(56:17):
that died. They couldn't even visitit because people might be there to attack
them because they think they're part ofthis conspiracy. In one case, somebody
even peed on the grave of oneof the kids who died because he thought
it was okay because the kid wasreally alive and this was all a scam,
it was all a hoax. Thesepeople have been accosted on the street
(56:38):
by people, harassed on the street, and even moving didn't help, because
they would move and then these peoplewould publish the address again. Now I'm
not saying Alex Jones published the address. I don't think he went that far,
but his followers did. So hislies caused this harassment to happen.
That's injury right there. I mean, And even if you're looking at it
(57:00):
from a monetary's perspective, how muchdoes it cost to move ten times within
a short time period. It's Imean, we're in twenty twenty two,
so I don't know exactly when theystop having to move, But let's just
say it was the four years twentyeighteen to twenty twenty two. You have
to move ten times because these Iwish Darvo would let me cuss on this
platform, but I can. Iget it. But because these people decided
(57:28):
to harass them and to put throughput them through all types of anguish because
of what Alex Jones did. Andobviously his statements were not privileged, so
it fit all of those criteria,which again is why Alex Jones deserves most
of what he's getting. I haveno sympathy for him whatsoever. These were
not statements of opinion. There werestatements of fact. And by the way,
(57:52):
it doesn't require intent, like ifyou say something that is untrue about
somebody else and they're not a publicfee here, because the rules are kind
of different when you're a public figure. The burden of proof is higher.
In that case, it does haveto be malicious, but even if it's
not malicious, you can still besued if you're a regular person. So
(58:15):
that's why Jones is going through whathe's going through. This isn't some plot
by the government. As much asI love to call out the government,
that's not what this is. WhatAlex Jones did was wrong. There's no
way too, There's really no wayto defend it. Again, I agree
that almost a billion dollars is steep, but as far as the other because
(58:38):
he's lost other cases where he's youknow, it's been millions of dollars.
I'm sorry, he deserves what he'sgetting. Again, I have no sympathy
for him. I know a lotof people like him. But again,
I'm not looking at this through apolitical lens. You know, my motto
principles over politics. Right. Myprinciple is, if if you violate these
(58:59):
laws and you get sued and youend up having to pay out, it's
your fault, you know, takepersonal responsibility. Right. So that's why
I wanted to go over this becausea lot of people are defending Alex Jones.
And you know, again, thisisn't really for the people who just
think that the punishment is too high, but it's for people who think that
(59:23):
he's being punished for free speech,that this is a violation of the First
Amendment. And I'm here to saythis is not a violation of the First
Amendment because the First Amendment does notprotect defamation. Now you might think that
it should, and that could beanother that would be a very interesting debate,
a very interesting conversation. But thefact of the matter is it doesn't.
(59:45):
You can't defame somebody and get awaywith it unless they choose not to
sue you. So I'm going toleave it there for right now. I
could go on and on about this, but yeah, I'll just leave it
there. I mean, I'm sureI'll get some responses to this I'll have
to respond to later, but that'sokay. But again, I appreciate everybody
(01:00:07):
for listening. I appreciate you stickingwith me, and again to subscribe if
you haven't already, leave me afive star rating and a review, and
until next time, I will catchyou on the flip side. This has
(01:00:30):
been a presentation of the FCB podcastNetwork, where Real Talk lifts. Visit
is online at FCB podcasts dot com.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com