Trump Wants to Give Cops Immunity

https://t.co/t0EIjPnrJ7

— Salvatore (@Enzospirit1) May 14, 2024

 

Trump wants additional federal indemnity protections for all police officers.

We're going to rebuild our cities.  We're going to bring them back like they used to be.  We're going to make them safe places again. We're going to give our police their power back, and we're going to give them immunity from prosecution so they're not prosecuted for doing their job.

We're going to indemnify them; in other words, we're going to hold them guiltless even when they commit their crimes, so they don't lose their wife, their family, their pension, and their job.  Maybe cops need to lose their wife and their family and their pension, and their job.  And maybe, just maybe, cops who commit criminal acts against Americans that they're supposed to be protecting and serving, maybe they need some jail time, Trump.  

So if you're voting for Donald Trump, you're voting for somebody who wants to hold cops guiltless when they commit crimes against the rest of us.  Trump is for heroes or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, ERPOs, or Red Flag Gun Laws. Red flag laws are anti-Second Amendment Laws.  

Trump:  We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil.

Offering a solution to stopping gun violence . . .

Trump:  that is why I have called for Red Flag Laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders

So when you're supporting Trump, or Biden or any presidential candidate, you got to know that those presidential candidates, and that's including Trump, are against the Second Amendment.  If they are against the 2nd Amendment, they're against your right to protect yourself, your fundamental, unalienable right to protect yourself.  And let me just remind you, the very first Red Flag Law that went into effect in Maryland resulted in the death of Gary Willis, who wanted to defend his home and the cops took his life anyway.  That's what Trump is for.  So if you are for Trump, you're for Red Flag Laws, which means you're against the 2nd Amendment.

Trump banned bump stocks, and a lot of people are like, "Who cares?  That doesn't matter.  I don't even know what bump stocks are.  I never even heard of them until I found out that Trump banned them."

Do you realize that banning bump stocks means a criminalization of hundreds of thousands of Americans who own bump stocks?  So what Trump did when he banned the bump stocks, he criminalized hundreds of thousands of Americans that he's supposed to be there protecting and serving, which is a violation also the Second Amendment.   [Ah, news flash: that's not Trump's job, nor the Fed's job to protect any of us unless from a foreign invader.] If you're voting for Trump, you're voting for "I like taking the guns first, due process second."

or might it take the firearms first, and then go to court because that's another system . . . because a lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process . . . procedures.  I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms--they saw everything--to go to court would have taken a long time.  So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.

"Take the guns first"?  "Take the guns first" is what a tyrant would say.  If you're voting for Trump, if you're voting for Biden, you're voting for tyrants.  And don't give me this lesser of the two evils nonsense.  If you choose the lesser of two evils, you're still making the decision to choose evil.  Is there not another choice?  Like how about doing the righteous thing, doing the good thing, doing the noble thing and not voting for evil at all?

Carlin:  I don't vote.  If you vote, you have no right to complain.

Another thing is with the national debt, Obama increased the national debt $8.6 trillion in 8 years.  Trump increased the national debt $8.4 trillion in 4 years.  Is this me saying "that makes Obama better than Trump"?  Not at all.  If you are increasing the national debt what you are actually doing is diminishing the value of every Americans Time and Labor it used to be before Trump got elected he was for quantitative tightening in other words stop printing money and make sure that the money we have the M2 money supply actually retains its value so that every unit that Americans earn is actually worth something, and then when he became president he moved away from quantitative tightening to calling for massive quantitative easing.

I personally think the Fed should drop rates.  I think they really slowed us down.  There's no inflation.  I would say in terms of quantitative tightening, it should actually now be quantitative easing.  Very little if any inflation, and I think they should drop rates and they should get rid of quantitative tightening, you would see a rocket ship. 

In other words, print the money.  Lower the interest rates.  Let's get this economy going, which basically he's saying "I don't give a damn about your time and labor, Americans.  I'm going to diminish it and devalue it."  And this $8.4 trillion doesn't even take into account the $6.2 trillion that he signed away from Americans toward the banking cartel, toward big Pharma Industrial complex, toward the military industrial complex in a way from Americans.  

Listen to this.  He's going to sign, with one signature, he's going to sign away $6.2 trillion, while mainstream media says it's just $2.2 trillion.  Listen to this now.

I'm going to sign this, and it's a great honor.  $6.2 trillion.  I've never signed anything with a "t" on it I don't know if I can handle this one.  We can't chicken out at this point.  I don't think so.  Huh?  All right.  Thank you all.

Now we're going to watch them sign this 5,100 page document that nobody read.  Watch what he does when he gets rid of the pen.  Watch the second person he gives the pen to.  

I wanted that to be a nice signature. 

First pen goes to Mitch McConnell.  Second pen goes to who?  Goldman Sachs bankster Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin.  It is a big club, and you ain't in it.  This is the Rothschild's banking cartel, taking firm control, even more firm control, over America and Americans.  So when you're voting for Donald Trump, you're probankster; you're also pro military industrial complex, because Trump gave the Pentagon one of the biggest increases it has seen in decades.  Remember we were warned by Eisenhower of the dangers of the military industrial complex.  

CHINA'S FOREIGN MINISTRY ON 2ND AMENDMENT: "That's the freedom the US advocates--the freedom to shoot other people"

NOW - China's Foreign Ministry on Americans' Second Amendment rights: "That's the freedom the US advocates — mean freedom to shoot other people."  pic.twitter.com/LzRBxvkdy6

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 25, 2022

Zhao Lijian, China's Foreign Ministry head, doesn't like the fact that Americans have a natural right to defend themselves against bigger enemies than themselves--in fact, any enemy--if they're called to do that.  Perhaps Lijian would like to render Americans defenseless.  Perhaps he'd like to take away granny's guns or grandpa's guns who lives along out in the country?  Perhaps he'd like to take the guns from a working single mother?  

But this video, and the fact that it was published, gives me pause.  Why is a Chinese official commenting on American rights and using those comments to indict the evils in the hearts of Americans?  From the weekly headlines, we hear about how dangerous Chicago is, mainly for its restrictions on gun rights.  And it is true that other American cities have a problem with indiscriminate gun violence.  So you may want to check up on that city before you decide to move there.  But these are American problems, and more likely problems to do with democratic party policies from the states and the federal government.  In other words, they're government-related, not gun-related. 

To a life-enhancing, life-protecting, defender of life, Zhao Lijian's message is irrational.  And given that it is irrational, is this trying to render in the minds of Americans and gun-owners that somehow our American counterpart is more rational, that an American official's call for disarmament more rational?  I wonder if this isn't one of the plays in broadcasting this message to American audiences.  I do wonder how much of America the Chinese own.  We know they own American politicians.  Maybe Swalwell was just the designated fall guy.  

Just as it is odd for a Russian to hear an American politician comment on life in Kiev or Moscow and would cause revulsion to hear some idiot politician who has no skin in the game of his life over there, it is equally offensive to hear a Chinese official comment on American life.  

Finally, isn't China commenting on American violence just a bit hypocritical?  Methinks it is. 

There is: 

Tiananmen Square.

Its war against the Falun Gong. 

Its 30-year war against its own people.

What about its war on children, where adults were only allowed 1 child per family? 

What I saw then, living in an agricultural commune in rural Guangdong, rivals anything that happened in Nazi Germany. One day in 1980 several hundred young mothers, all pregnant with second or higher-order children, were ordered to attend population control meetings. There they were told that they would all have to abort their pregnancies. Those who refused were arrested for the “crime” of being pregnant and locked up until they, too, buckled under the pressure and submitted to an abortion. 

There is a database, in fact, of massacres in China.  Tell us again about the United States massacring its people.  Maybe we can agree that it's not the violence of a particular country, but more that governments around the world massacre their own people quite often.  There are good reasons for self-defense.  Protection against one's own government may be on the top of some people's list.