The Media Is Lying to You About This

What this episode is about

The discussion centers on the Insurrection Act and its implications, particularly in the context of President Trump's potential use of the law to deploy federal troops during civil unrest. Key points include a defense of the Act as a necessary legal measure for maintaining order, clarification of its limitations, and a critique of how opponents mischaracterize its purpose and implications for state governance and elections.

Key takeaways

• The Insurrection Act is less about power grabs and more about restoring order, despite its political dramatization.
• Martial law and the Insurrection Act: two different dances—one with military boots, the other with legal loopholes.
• Historically, 16 presidents invoked it—Trump isn’t a pioneer; he’s just dancing to a familiar tune.
• Claiming every use of federal force is fascistic ignores the real historical context—call it sensationalism, not truth.
• In a divided nation, the real insurrection might be against common sense itself, not federal law enforcement.

Who speaks in this episode?

• Steven Crowder (Host) · 21 min speaking
• Unknown (Host) · 5 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Insurrection Act, Minneapolis, American citizens, Thomas Jefferson
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Insurrection Act, ICE, Minneapolis, American citizens
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Insurrection Act, Minneapolis, Renee Mlin Good
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Minneapolis, Insurrection Act, Gestapo, Renee Mlin Good
5. 20:00 – 25:00: Gestapo, Minneapolis, American citizens

Notable quotes from "The Media Is Lying to You About This"

• Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the insurrection act. Do not allow them to declare martial law.

  about Insurrection Act · at 0:00

• The Insurre what the Insurrection Act is, what it is not, and why I would argue it's entirely appropriate for Minneapolis at this point in time. So it allows the president to…

  about Minneapolis · at 0:46

• Like that? Yes. where the president of the United States is sending military or troops dressed as military ICE and CBP in camouflage with automatic weapons into our major cities.

  about CBP · at 3:09

• What right has Donald Trump removed from American citizens? Just name it.

  about American citizens · at 4:32

• Parking in the street and kind of I've seen videos where they're literally boxing ICE agents in and ICE agents have so little power to enforce all the police aren't going to…

  about ICE · at 6:57

• Right. Well, because they're the Gestapo, right? That's right.

  about Gestapo · at 16:12

• You're there, I don't know, some job conference, all right? [snorts] and you see the standoff right there with Renee Good and Ice and she's blocking the street and you're…

  about Renee Mlin Good · at 17:39

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Renee Mlin Good — Person · Referenced protest figure / illustrative example · 3 mentions · first at 12:17
  Renee Good is cited as a protester who allegedly blocked ICE, hit an officer with her car, and is portrayed as being valorized by opponents—used to argue enforcement is being obstructed.
• Thomas Jefferson — Person · Founding-era precedent figure · 1 mention · first at 3:48
  Referenced as an early example of Insurrection Act invocation (1808) to show the law is longstanding and used for enforcing federal policy.
  This was when American merchant ships flouted Jefferson's trade embargo with the British. You have Eisenhower and JFK. This was 57 through 63. This is when governors refused to enforce.
• General Dwight D. Eisenhower — Person · Historical precedent figure · 1 mention · first at 3:53
  Cited (with JFK) as invoking the Insurrection Act to enforce desegregation when governors refused, supporting the claim the Act can enforce constitutional rights and federal law.
  This was when American merchant ships flouted Jefferson's trade embargo with the British. You have Eisenhower and JFK. This was 57 through 63. This is when governors refused to enforce desegregation. Yeah.
• John F. Kennedy (JFK) — Person · Historical precedent figure · 1 mention · first at 3:54
  Mentioned alongside Eisenhower as precedent for using federal power to enforce desegregation, reinforcing the Act's legitimacy and limited purpose.
  Flouted Jefferson's trade embargo with the British. You have Eisenhower and JFK. This was 57 through 63. This is when governors refused to enforce desegregation. Yeah.

Companies & orgs

• ICE — Company · Primary operational organization discussed · 2 mentions · first at 7:00
  ICE is portrayed as conducting immigration enforcement in Minneapolis and being obstructed by protesters and non-cooperating local officials; the speakers argue ICE lacks authority for certain local enforcement without police support.
• CBP — Company · Referenced federal agency in analogy/critique · 1 mention · first at 3:13
  Mentioned with ICE as 'troops dressed as military' in a quoted criticism, supporting the episode's focus on federal deployments and rhetoric around them.

Concepts & topics

• Insurrection Act — Concept · Core legal concept / central topic · 17 mentions · first at 0:02
  The speakers argue the Act is limited, historically used, distinct from martial law, and potentially applicable to Minneapolis and sanctuary-city obstruction of federal enforcement.
• American citizens — Concept · Rights-bearing group invoked in argument · 3 mentions · first at 4:32
  Debate hinges on whether federal actions target 'Americans' vs 'non-Americans' and whether rights are being infringed or protected by restoring order.
• Gestapo — Concept · Rhetorical label / propaganda comparison · 3 mentions · first at 16:12
  The speakers claim opponents call ICE 'the Gestapo' to justify harassment/obstruction; used to argue critics are disingenuous and inflaming conflict.

Places & events

• Minneapolis — Place · Primary location / case study · 8 mentions · first at 0:51
  Minneapolis is used as the concrete example where ICE operations are allegedly obstructed and where speakers argue the Insurrection Act threshold is met.
• Twin Cities — Place · Situational setting (hypothetical) · 1 mention · first at 17:35
  Used in a hypothetical to make the Minneapolis scenario relatable (a person visiting for work encountering ICE/protest standoff).
  Imagine you, for whatever reason, you're working in Minneapolis, Twin Cities.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the insurrection act. Do not allow them to declare martial law.

0:08 That does not give the president the powers to take over the state legislature. Does not give him the ability to suspend elections. It gives him the ability to ensure that law and order is maintained and especially federal law is still capably enforced in the face of insurrectionists. The Insurrection Act. So, let me just set this up for you. the threat of President Trump invoking the Insurrection Act that has now been uh it's been made into a boogeyman for the left. He wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. They want you to believe that that makes him de facto fascist. Uh no, it exists for a reason. It's been invoked many times for a reason. Let me just clarify this to you and then I want to get through what the Insurre uh what the Insurrection Act is, what it is not, and why I would argue it's entirely appropriate for Minneapolis at this point in time. So it allows the president to deploy the

0:57 military domestically against anyone who quote engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof or gives aid or comfort there too. So that tells you what it is. That tells you where it's appropriate. It does it's not the same as martial law. And I want you to keep that in mind as you watch the left wrongfully describe it for you. And what this administration is looking for um is is for there to be deadly encounters so that they can uh revoke the insurrection act and have martial law.

1:35 By definition, he's going to test the boundaries and the limits. And that's why I suggest the next phase of this is the insurrection act.

1:40 The president who talked about wanting to shoot protesters multiple times according to multiple eyewitnesses, but was stopped from making that order uh has has sort of wanted another crack at him and wanted the insurrection act. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law. [snorts]

2:01 Martial law is not the same as the Insurrection Act. To be clear, uh the Insurrection Act allows there are three conditions under which it would be appropriate and there are 16 times that I believe or 16 different presidents. I'll have the numbers here in a second. Uh that it's been invoked. And that does not give the president the powers to take over the state legislature. does not give him the ability to suspend elections. It gives him the ability to ensure that law and order is maintained in especially federal law is still capably enforced in the face of insurrectionists.

2:32 It's actually really clear. So this idea that it's nebulous, no, it's not. It's very limited. It's very transparent. And that brings us to claim truth. [bell] As always, the references are available. Link in the description. Here's the first claim you will hear. Of course, it's untrue. Only a fascist would invoke the Insurrection Act.

2:53 In the early days of the Nazi regime, they started slowly but surely taking a pe away people's rights. And what we're seeing now is the very same thing. They've gone into cities now with the military. Think about that. In your lifetime, have you ever seen anything like that? Yes. where the president of the United States is sending military or troops dressed as military ICE and CBP in camouflage with automatic weapons into our major cities.

3:21 It's wrong. And indeed, especially at a time when it's the president of the United States who's causing the mayhem on the ground.

3:28 Oh, okay. That's right. That's right. Yeah. Black Lives Matter was uh his fault.

3:31 Oh, no. That's right. That was one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump was elected in his first term, the Law and Order president, because people were tired of it. Then that brings us to the truth. It was created by the founders for a very valid reason. 16 presidents invoked the act 30 different times for multitude of reasons. Let me give you some examples. Thomas Jefferson in 1808. This was when American merchant ships flouted Jefferson's trade embargo with the British. You have Eisenhower and JFK. This was 57 through 63. This is when governors refused to enforce desegregation. Yeah.

4:00 And then I believe the last person, last president to invoke it was George HW Bush in '92 when California couldn't quell the Rodney King riots themselves.

4:09 No prior use was ever declared unconstitutional. It's just if Donald Trump does it. You know, we saw that same thing where you had plenty of presidents and candidates who questioned election results. It was never something worthy of impeachment until Donald Trump did so.

4:23 And then you have a guy like Pritsker who, I'm sorry, we've been down this road before said in Nazi Germany they started taking away rights. And you're seeing the same thing here. Name one.

4:31 Right. What right has Donald Trump removed from American citizens? Just just name it. Because you've basically made the claim that he's a Nazi. He's just like Hitler right now. It's Hitler 2.0.

4:40 Right. Right. And now you're saying he's taking away I know Hitler bad always. Right. He's taking away rights.

4:46 Wasn't that the 48th Amendment? The uh the right to assault federal officers and flee the right to enter illegally.

4:54 I guess maybe the rights were removed from them. Like he didn't allow people on their own front porch. Donald Trump ordered the shooting of them with paintball guns because of a virus. Ah, it's just it's really hard for me to keep track. Here's here's the next claim you'll hear

5:07 that there's no precedent that would be appropriate here right now uh for President Trump using it. There's no example similar to this. All the laws both the militia act and the insurrection act that he mentioned both require you know the president to state that there is some sort of uh you know emergency or uprising or rebellion that can't be controlled through conventional law enforcement. Correct. Uh and everything that the Trump administration has tried to say is happening in order to justify invoking either of those laws just isn't true. It's just not all the all the crises that they're citing are manufactured and they've been manufactured in some pieces willingly by this administration.

5:45 Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Well, here's the truth. Um, of course, there's as a matter of fact, this would meet the definition uh and certainly one of the three requirements. The Interaction Act is meant to be invoked under three distinct circumstances. Number one, at the request of a state

5:59 like California, the Rodney King. Yep, that makes sense. Number two, uh to enforce federal law when unlawful obstructions make it something that's not possible.

6:09 Well, so we do have states and then we do have federal laws to be clear. And if the federal law can't be enforced, well, it still is under the purview of the federal government to ensure that it's enforced. And number three, to protect the people's constitutional rights when states fail or refuse to do so. You know, for example, if people have the right to travel freely, if people have the right to speak freely, if people have the right to not be under threat of violence because multiple city blocks are taken over, keep in mind that the conditions two and three, uh, they actually don't require any consent from the state. As a matter of fact, they're there specifically to deal with states that don't provide consent and may actually be involved in aiding or abetting insurrectionists themselves.

6:50 Yeah. And clearly, go back up to number two really quickly. Clearly number two, enforce federal law when unlawful obstructions. You mean like somebody parking in the street and kind of I've seen videos where they're literally boxing ICE agents in and ICE agents have so little power to enforce all the police aren't going to help them that they just basically have to sit there and take it. This is the most insane thing that I have seen. So number two, 100% it's a walk-off done move in. I think you can argue that with every sanctuary city.

7:17 Yeah, that's what I say. Every sanctuary every sanctuary city existing is an obstruction to federal law. operations.

7:23 Yeah. It's like, oh, the federal law is you can deport illegal aliens. Well, we're going to protect them. Insurrection act. It is.

7:28 There you go. You mean protect them as in like let them come here and not do anything, or do you mean protect them as in um actively work against us when we try to take them out of the country?

7:37 Yeah. Yeah. And that's all you need. Actively working. Make it impractical. Not impossible. That's what they're doing. You don't have to go to impossible. Just mess with it a lot.

7:43 And before we have the libertarians out there, this is solely a presidential power. You need no uh congressional approval. That's by design. It was confirmed by the Supreme Court some 1820 something. You can go check the references. We make them all available. The next claim that they will make, and you'll hear this a lot, is that well, but President Trump is going to be using the military against his own citizens. That is fascist and not in line with the father's something.

8:07 At this point, Trump has been very clear about his intent. At Quanico, speaking as commander-in-chief, he instructed his military brass to use cities as quote training grounds. And many times he's floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act so that military units can raid, detain, and arrest Americans.

8:28 Well, in this case, they're seeking out non-Americans. So, that's a truth that's pretty important. I think ICE is seeking out non-Americans who are being protected by um anti-American communists, for example, you know, the mayor of Minneapolis. But uh no, President Trump would only be using this against insurgents. the insurrection act. It limits the presidential authority to restoring law and order and only targeting in insurgents. It even requires that the president give them one last public warning to peacefully disperse before the military can and will be used. Let's be really clear.

9:02 Legal scholars all agree that the president's actions under the act are quote limited by the constitution and by tradition. There's no suspension of civil rights,

9:11 right, like you would see under martial law. Which brings us to the next claim and they deliberately try and disingenuously link the two as though they are one and the same. Insurrection act and martial law.

9:22 A scenario in which Trump finds a pretext, invokes the insurrection act, and tries to impose martial law.

9:29 Not the same thing. Elections therefore could be cancelled or if they happen, he could surround polling places with military and federal law enforcement to intimidate voters. The president's threat to invoke the insurrection act is real. It has to be taken as real. He may well use the insurrection act as a weapon to expand his deployments and turn these cities and states into armed camps and police states.

10:01 Yeah. So, here's the truth. Um, the Insurrection Act allows the president to restore order to the state. It does not allow him to run the state at all. Just to be clear, nowhere in the Insurrection Act is a president allowed to uh take over the civil administration of the states, to rewrite laws, to suspend elections, or to simply declare martial law, or even deploy Robocops.

10:24 You now have 5 seconds. If kids are watching, they shouldn't. Keep firing. Keep going. Keep going. It's a Dallas skyline,

10:48 so you can't do that. Yeah, that's not allowed. The interaction act. Okay. It's the It's at the very least what we determined to be a gray area. medic area, but uh they get they they they keep saying these things like it's an excuse so he could set up these camps, an excuse so he could do this, an excuse. What? Why?

11:05 Yeah. Wh to what end? They they insist that Trump is in love with the idea of martial law. He's in love with the idea of turning American cities into into military camps. For what reason?

11:18 Give me the reason. What is your reason? What do you think he wants to do? Because the reason we're saying is to, you know, uphold law and order. Yeah.

11:25 You're saying it's to set up all these for what? Yeah. For what? Oh, Alyssa Lock. Oh, to use told the told the troops to to use it as a training ground.

11:34 Well, is that what he said? Or did he say treat it like a training ground as in no live rounds,

11:39 right? Yeah. Don't treat it like war. You'll never know. Is Oh, okay. You'll you'll never know. They'll never tell you because they also try and tell you that's the same as martial law. I absolutely think that Minneapolis that Minnesota meets the threshold for the Insurrection Act. I absolutely think that the Insurrection Act exists for a reason. I think this is well within the bounds of precedent. As a matter of fact, I think if you look at some of the examples where the Insurrection Act was um invoked, uh it it actually wasn't this severe

12:05 and I think we need to stop behaving in a way that fears the PR from the left because they're going to give it to you anyway. You just had a woman who protested all day, helped lead it, blocked ICE officers, hit one with her car, and she is being made into Saint Renee. I don't care about the PR from the left. I care about the country that we live in. I care about law and order. And restoring law and order within the proper constraints constitutionally uh in no way violates your rights, my rights,

12:35 or the idea of freedom in America. It actually protects them. It preserves those rights. This wouldn't be a problem had the border not been as open as it was under the Biden administration and going back decades for sure. But specifically, this wouldn't be a problem if places like Minneapolis, Minnesota were doing their jobs. They would help ICE. They would make sure that they detained people and found out, "Ah, this person's here illegally. ICE, can you come pick this person up? I have a detainer. Here you go. This person's off to go back to wherever they came from."

13:02 Same thing in California. We wouldn't have to do this on the level that we're doing it right now. What if you just cooperated a little? Do you think bad guys off the streets would be something that you could sell in the next election? Probably. So instead, you're out there saying, "Oh, it's moms and dads and I can't believe we're doing this to our own citizens." How about we just enforce the laws? We have a union of states here that said yes. We all sign up for this. Yeah. You can't just go, "Well, I don't like that rule. I don't want to do that.

13:29 I'm sorry. I'm not going to do that." No, you have to. If we're going to send people in to make sure it's done. Well, how about this, too? Where they go, "Oh, bad guys. Look, ICE." Um, and then this is how you know the left is disingenuous. They'll say, "Well, of course, you know, Lake and Riley is tra and nobody wants that. Oh, of course they're roots." You know, nobody wants that. Okay. So, let me ask you this. If it was your child, if it was your 12-year-old girl who was raped, who was forcibly sodomized, who was trafficked, and you had a beat on the guy who did it, what would stop you?

14:03 And then would someone would you allow someone to stop you who is acting actively on behalf of the forcable sodomite on the child rapist? Would you allow a Renee Good to stop you mocking you, dancing if you know that you have a chance to capture someone who is trafficking children, raping children, beating them? But would Would Would you let her stop you? Of course not. The answer is you would probably be far more forceful. That's what these people are out there to do. Sure, they're going to arrest any illegal aliens uh they encounter as they should.

14:39 But you can find people, these protesters defending, protecting these horrible, awful criminals in every single instance. Would you allow them to stop you? If the answer is no, then you understand what's at play here. Because the left, notably these screeching angry feminists, the same hats are out there now. They will actively defend these people always, no matter how heinous the act. That's how it goes. That's why the insurrection act is appropriate in my opinion. And we'll take your chats and see what what you think about that.

15:11 I think so, too. And by the way, on CNN right now, a source says, "A thousand more immigration agents deploying to Minneapolis." Good. Great. Flood the zone. I'm not even kidding. Like, at this point, it's like if they get away with this and they run the ICE agents off, it's a playbook for every single major American city who doesn't want to play ball or a state that wants to be a sanctuary state.

15:28 Yeah. Don't let it happen. And the Minneapolis police, boy, talk about embarrassing. They basically abandoned their post. You saw that these guy, they they found out where the ICE agents were sleeping, the hotel, they were trying to get in and like, if we can't get in, we'll just disturb the peace all night. All night so they can't get sleep. Absolutely. What about the people around there?

15:44 Yeah. What about their right? You know, we enforce disturbing the peace in any other instance. We just won't in this case because

15:51 we don't enforce anything when it comes to these ICE protests. We don't enforce anything. You see these people going out to cars to the ICE agent's cars banging on the windows. You see him throwing bricks at windshields over from bridge overpasses. You see hassling them, surrounding them. You can't do that to me.

16:05 No. Well, but there's You can't do that to your neighbor. Why can you do it to a federal law enforcement? Why is it because they have a badge on? It's okay.

16:12 Right. Well, because they're the Gestapo, right? That's right. Because it's the Gestapo and they're out here murdering Jews,

16:18 right? Burning people alive, so it's okay. You can do it. Well, there's a specific legal problem with this. if the police force decides they're not going to help out.

16:26 ICE officers don't have the authority to enforce normal traffic laws or anything. Exactly.

16:32 So, they know they can get away with it. So, I I have a question, and this maybe is a legal question for George or anybody else. Is there a way

16:39 that they can be deputized and given more authority legally, but is there like a is like a a conservative sheriff out there that needs a little bit more help and it applies statewide? I have no idea how these things work. But what I'm saying is these ICE officers, and I'm look, I'm not looking to give them like unfettered authority, but if somebody is blocking and impeding them and endangering them, I would like for them to be able to drag them out of the car, put them in cuffs, and put them in a federal detention facility and have charges filed. Yep.

17:05 Not well, the police force doesn't want to do it. Like in New York, Mom Donnie says, "I won't cooperate with ICE." Obviously, Pritsker doesn't want anybody in his state cooperating with ICE. And Gavin Newsome doesn't want anybody in his state cooperating [snorts] with ICE. How about we go around that a little bit, but use the law to do it? That would be fantastic. Anybody got any ideas? I hope so.

17:23 Let me ask you this. People say, "Oh, it's going to it's going to infringe upon your rights." Put yourself right there. Let's let's try and get this to the most literal apples to apples like comparison that you can get here. Imagine you, for whatever reason, you're working in Minneapolis, Twin Cities. You're there, uh, I don't know, some job conference, all right? [snorts] and you see the standoff right there with Renee Good and Ice and she's blocking the street and you're trying to get to your next meeting, your next conference, and you see the ICE cars and you drive down the street and go around. So, you're right there in that scenario, but you're not blocking ice.

18:01 Would you feel under threat even there in that scenario whatsoever? Would you feel that any of your freedoms, of your rights are being infringed upon by those ICE officers?

18:12 The only fear I would have is that I would be yelled at and that I would have to move somewhere I didn't want to move.

18:20 Oh, gee. Yeah. I would feel that my rights are being infringed upon by the lady blocking traffic.

18:27 What if you lived in that neighborhood? Would you feel that ICE coming in to carry out a mission, which by the way they aim to do very swiftly, go in, get said criminal, take them out, would you feel as though they have put you at risk? They have somehow impeded your day or would you feel that the lady honking, blaring music, screaming, blocking the streets head?

18:49 It's easy to blame ICE in that situation. Uh because if you're a neighbor in the neighborhood, you don't want to blame the protesters,

18:56 right? Ice isn't going to burn your house down, right? ICE isn't going to keep you up all night yelling. ICE isn't going to throw things through your window. ICS isn't going to follow you, make a tracker.

19:06 Yeah. To find out where the fascist lives. Yep. And that's why the police in Minneapolis. Like, you guys really think they'll You really think they're going to give you a pass? These are the same people who were burning down your city over you, the police, right? The police in Minnesota. And now you think, well, they moved on to ICE. You do realize they just hate law and order.

19:26 It'll come back to you. Of course it will. They're not going to remember your your solidarity with them in a year when you uh you know use a little bit too much force on somebody according to their view.

19:36 Yeah. Exactly. The next time someone tries to run you over with their car uh and only gives you a little bit of a bruise and you enforce the law, you're going to be the reason for the protest. You understand that, right? Appeasing crocodiles is is an exercise in futility. I'm amazed that anyone still has to relearn these lessons. It's enough. Law and order. This idea. That's also why I find it funny, you know, when I was sitting I mean we mentioned Dave Smith where he said every single pre this was very telling to me as far as just a different worldview.

20:04 I asked him I said so are which presidents would be you know guilty of war crimes? Every single president ever. He said

20:11 with the exception of George Washington. Well that just tells me you don't know George Washington.

20:16 Yeah. That tells me you don't know anything about the French Indian Wars. That tells me that you don't know that he had people executed and made their fellow men watch. Like there's an example that's made out of you. I mean, you can even get into the taxes on whiskey. Like, you don't know George Washington. This is the most tolerant that American leaders have ever been have ever been of disruptors because everyone who's believed in freedom, liberty, a constitutional republic understood that it can only exist under the umbrella of law and order, under the umbrella of a lawful people. This whole thing we we even go the goalposts have moved from oh well you know your your your rights end at my face right the rights of your fist end at my face.

20:56 We're literally seeing that now. Does do their rights end when their fist hits your car? How about when their hand on the steering wheel blocks traffic? Why all of a sudden are we saying live and let live? They're not letting live. Does it have to get to the point where they are actively in the process of killing you to take action? Or do we say we're a country of laws? You're not allowed to block traffic like that. People have to go to work. You're not allowed to honk and scream and disrupt an entire neighborhood because people may have children sleeping. There may be a child who just got back from the hospital and needs to recover.

21:34 Also, it's just rude, dude. Yeah, children understand this. Children understand this. I had kids who were ding-dong ditching one time.

21:40 Yeah, they ding-dong ditched my house and Joe Lo had just come back from the vet. It was like a minor procedure, but he was all groggy and he got and he kind of stumbled around and I went down. I said, "Hey kids, you know, I I I get it's fine if you guys having fun. Just could you just not do like not do my house cuz I have a sick dog there. He just came back from the vet and uh you know, it takes a lot for me to get him kind of down to bed." And you could see in their face, oh, oh, one of them tried to blame a friend. He said, "It was him." And like, we're sorry.

22:09 Yeah. Yeah. We're sorry. And the next time they saw my dog, hey, what's his name? Oh, hey, Joel. like they got it, but they had a conscience. These people don't. These people don't. They're like, "Well, yeah, how could I know that you had a child in your house?" You don't. That's why we have laws. That's what people go, "Well, how could I know that a 30-day waiting period for a gun was going to result in an ex-boyfriend killing you?" You don't. That's why we have the Second Amendment.

22:36 Yeah. If I'm not a criminal, I have the right to defend myself. The laws are designed so that you don't need to take into account every single facet of every unique situation. They are universal. They apply to all. Human beings have the right to be in a neighborhood that is not disrupted. They have the right to drive their vehicles without being hit, without being blocked. Therefore, you don't do it. It doesn't matter if they're rushing someone to the hospital. It doesn't matter if they have a sick kid recovering at home and you're disturbing the peace. None of that matters. This is the law. You follow it.

23:05 And if you don't, there are consequences. If you repeatedly don't follow it, you're taking your life in your hands. That's how it always worked. We used to expect a police officer to defend themselves violently or a federal officer if you committed 1 2 3 four felonies that day and charged at him with your car. Whether intentional or not, it would not have been a surprise. It would have been a foregone conclusion.

23:29 Yeah. Also, if this was a police officer in Minneapolis and the exact situation, we wouldn't be hearing about it. We won't be talking about it.

23:37 Probably not. I don't. No, we wouldn't be talking about it. It wouldn't be major news cuz everyone would be like, "Ah, yeah. Well, it's tricky cuz it looks like you came at him and Oh." Yeah,

23:45 it's because it's ICE. Yeah. Now it's O now it's the Gestapo. Yep. And just think about the world we would live in or the country we live in. And I'm not even asking liberal mayors to completely do something reasonable and change their opinion on ICE and and the services that they're providing, but just to say to the people like just to make sure people don't die in the streets because of this. Hey, hey, hey. None of us like this, but there are some criminals here illegally. Here's a list like the one we just gave of 10 offenses from these criminals that we've had picked up in the last month. So, we may not like this, and I'm working to make sure that this doesn't disturb our communities too much, but we need to let these people do their jobs to remove the criminals from amongst us that are killing, raping, robbing, doing all kinds of crazy stuff to our citizens.

24:35 Can we all just do that and then hate them later when they're gone? Like hate ICE officers after they're gone? Can we all still be on board with that? That would be

24:42 so much more productive. But what they have right now is it's the [clears throat] Gestapo going around right now just randomly pulling people off the streets to send them to a crematorium.

24:52 That's not it's not what's happening. You won't get these these leaders to stop defending these folks either.

24:57 No, you won't get you won't get that. I think you're asking a little too much. I think simpler you say you hate them, whatever. say all the things you're already saying except hey don't get in the way.

25:07 Yeah. You don't we hate this. We don't like this. We're motans. We're all we're a we're a pack together. But hey, stay off the roads.

25:15 Yeah. Cuz uh hey, that's a law enforcement operation there. And uh I will even say this. I'll just go I'll be incredibly reductive. Uh because they'll eventually maybe someday come out with someone who is just, you know, selling empanadas and gets escorted or roughed up. We haven't seen it yet. If [snorts] it existed, you would know about it. Uh, but I don't even want to get into they have to be a child rapist. They have to be a drug dealer. Let me ask you this. Do illegal aliens have the right to be here? No. Okay. Round them up. Deport them. That's it. Anyone who interferes with it, you're breaking the law. You'll be dealt with accordingly. Oh, you're still here.

25:50 And you're still watching this on YouTube. You've probably noticed something is missing by now. I'm not here. That's because the Live Daily Show is now streaming exclusively on Rumble weekdays at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. Tune in there where nothing is censored.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "The Media Is Lying to You About This"?

Steven Crowder (Host), Unknown (Host).

What is "The Media Is Lying to You About This" about?

The discussion centers on the Insurrection Act and its implications, particularly in the context of President Trump's potential use of the law to deploy federal troops during civil unrest. Key points include a defense of the Act as a necessary legal measure for maintaining order, clarification of its limitations, and a critique of how opponents mischaracterize its purpose and implications for…

What is mentioned in this StevenCrowder episode?

11 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Insurrection Act, Minneapolis, ICE, American citizens, Renee Mlin Good, Gestapo. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "The Media Is Lying to You About This"?

The episode runs 26 min; the transcript is about 5,364 words in 88 timestamped sections.

More from StevenCrowder

• All analyzed episodes
• People mentioned on StevenCrowder
• Topics mentioned on StevenCrowder