reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @restoreorderusa
reSee.it AI Summary
The conversation discusses Edward Coristine, referred to as "Big Balls," who was attacked by a group of eight teenagers. One participant expresses concern over the incident, attributing it to a lack of control by local authorities. Another participant clarifies that Edward was not specifically targeted; he intervened while the teenagers were attacking a woman in her car. They also question whether the attackers would have any knowledge of cryptocurrency, implying a disconnect between them and contemporary culture.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Edward Coristine – also known as "Big Balls" – is a great guy and a patriot. He was recently attacked by eight black teenagers, who the D.C. political class allows to rampage throughout the city. Totally unacceptable.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
It doesn't look like Edward was targeted. From what I've gathered, the "youths" were attacking a woman in her car, and Edward intervened. Besides, do you really think the guys who attacked him could even tell you what DOGE is?
reSee.it AI Summary
I had a thought-provoking discussion with Forrest Maready about his book, The Age of Envy: 1848-Present. We explored his background in film and advertising, the significance of 1848, and how the steam-powered printing press changed history. We delved into how technology highlights inequality, fueling envy, which I believe is central to leftist ideology. In the second half, we examined the inevitability of envy, the challenges of mass democracy, and the concept of post-truth. We ended by questioning whether envy could ultimately threaten civilization or if there's a path to resolution.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Has technological change given rise to envy? Forrest Maready (@forrestmaready) joins me to discuss his recent book, The Age of Envy: 1848-Present. (1:37) Forrest’s background in the film, television, and advertising industries (11:58) What happened in 1848? (15:52) How the steam-powered printing press changed history (17:58) Technology brought inequality to light, giving rise to envy (24:56) Envy is at the center of leftism In the second half (available to subscribers), we explore whether envy is inevitable, given how natural inequality is. This leads to a consideration of democracy and how it measures up to pre-democratic political systems. I argue that while we must be pragmatic – there’s no bringing back monarchy – we should be honest about how mass democracy impedes certain political reforms. Shifting gears, Forrest discusses the concept of post-truth. How can nations continue to exist when people have widely different conceptions of reality? We wrap up the show by pondering if envy will destroy civilization—or if there’s a way out of the madness.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Patrick Casey interviews Forrest Moretti, author of "The Age of Envy," about the book's themes. Moretti discusses his background, including his religious upbringing, work in the film industry, and how he became a conservative. He also briefly explains proterianism, a Christian denomination he founded.
The conversation centers on Moretti's book, which posits that 1848 was a pivotal year due to the emergence of communism, feminism, and evolution. Moretti argues that envy, fueled by technological advancements like the steam-powered printing press, train, and telegraph, is the root cause of these movements. These technologies exposed people to the lives and privileges of others, creating widespread envy and discontent.
Moretti believes envy is a driving force behind modern issues like wokeness and the rejection of hierarchy. He suggests that the left's solution to eliminate envy by erasing all distinctions is misguided and that inequality is a natural part of creation. He also touches on the role of language in nationalism and the challenges of unwinding the problems caused by technology-driven envy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everyone. I hope you're doing well. My name is Patrick Casey, and you're watching Restoring Order. On this episode of the show, I'm joined by a special guest. His name is Forrest Moretti.
He's the author of over a dozen books, many of them stemming from years of medical research. Most recently, he wrote The Age of Envy, which we will be discussing on this on this podcast episode. Forrest lives in North Carolina with his family. He is an avid musician, tennis player, and competitive shooter. Mister Moretti, it's good to have you on.
How are you?
Speaker 1: Hey, Patrick. Thank you for having me. Forrest is fine, but Mr. Moretti sounds sounds really nice every now and then.
Speaker 0: I try sure. I try to keep it respectful, you know, during the introduction, then we'll go to the the first name basis here. So very good. Well, you were kind enough to send me a copy of one of your more recent books as we were discussing before the recording started. You you write at a very impressive rate.
So you've got a few books out recently, but we have The Age of Envy here. It's a nice, you know, looks like a high quality print. It is about some historical developments that took place in 1848 and some broader themes, obviously envy being one of them that relate to these these historical happenings. So we'll be getting into that. But when I have a guest on for the first time, I enjoy getting to know them a little bit better.
So, Forrest, why don't you tell us a little bit about kind of where you're coming from? I know you're a Christian. I know that you are conservative broadly. Maybe you can tell us kind of what you're about and you know, if you have some interesting story as how you became a conservative or something of that sort. Happy to hear that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. I'm was, like you said, raised in traditional Baptist church every Sunday school, got the blue star every six months for perfect attendance never missed and, you know, had a quarter in the envelope every Sunday. And I went to Wake Forest for college. I went on a music scholarship for composition. I actually started composing music as an as a child and was able to get some pieces performed and was able to get a scholarship to Wake Forest.
Nice. I was not a good fit for the music program at Wake Forest and started taking a lot of religion classes because they had a Tolkien scholar, a nationally recognized Tolkien scholar at Wake Forest. So I took every class he offered up with a religion major just because I loved literature and religion. The theology somewhat didn't really enjoy that as much as just literature, allegory, symbolism, and these sorts of things. And I ended up with a pipe organ minor, if you could believe that.
I play the pipe organ and really enjoyed it.
Speaker 0: Very cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So went from there, ended up in the film industry, ended up working quite a quite a while in the film industry. Worked on a bunch of movies and TV shows, Muppet movies and Dawson's Creek and just lots of lots of wild stories there.
Speaker 0: So what were you doing specifically? Writing, sound stuff, music?
Speaker 1: Yeah. A lot of different things, mostly post production related things, which is stuff that happens after filming. But a lot of onset stuff to music playback, sound recording, a lot of audio related things. I did some editing. And then in fact, my wife and I moved to Los Angeles for a while so that I could work in visual effects.
So I did that for a while, computer animation, visual effects and that sort of thing. So I did that for quite a while, and I eventually kinda got bored with it. I'm I like reading. I like having conversations with people about things other than smoking snorting cocaine in James Cameron's Diving Bell while filming Abyss. And, you know, these are the sorts of stories you hear when you're working on set in the film industry.
And you you get tired of them eventually. I mean, they're they're very awesome people who do this work. They're very interesting people. I guess I kinda got bored with it and finally just got out and got into the advertising industry, did that a while. And along the way, I started writing.
I had been writing as a child with no success and no actual commitment or follow through to get an actual book done. But about, I don't know, seven years ago, maybe I wrote a book called The Moth and the Iron Lung, and it's a story of polio. It's called A Biography of Polio. And it was based on a lot of research I had done. A Giant Rabbit Hole I went down, and that book's done fairly well.
Most people know me through that book. And it's a historical account of polio that's much different than what you and I were told as children. And so in college, I read a lot of Thomas Sowell and the sort of usual suspects for the gateway drug into conservative thinking. Read some Neil Postman. Just a lot of stuff that sort of made me become curious if if the things I was being told by my peers was true.
And so I think through that reading, that's sort of how I got into the mindset of conservatism, I guess I'd call it, even though I'm hesitant to label it as such.
Speaker 0: Sure. Yeah. People have feelings about that term, about every other right of center label that could be applied. And I don't, I don't begrudge them that, you know, how their feelings on these particular terms, but you know, generally a right of center guy I think is accurate you. You, you know, sent me a book.
So I don't have many liberals sending me books. I'm to open a package from, from a, you know, a liberal who DM me on Twitter. So, yeah, very good. So your other books do look interesting, but we probably should keep the foot, the topic of discussion limited to the age of envy. So I did want to ask you one more thing.
So you according to your Amazon bio, it says you founded proterianism, a Christian domination focused on restoring both tribes and an understanding of the faith before it was taken over by pagans, polytheists, and philosophers. And as a Catholic, I kind of guess this is not this is not Catholicism. But in the spirit of, you know, open discussion, I'm curious to hear a little bit more about about this Christian sect that you're, you know, I guess founded.
Speaker 1: If you're asking, there'd be dragons. No. My curiosity has no bounds. And you can imagine anyone who goes to college and studies theology develops a knack for questioning themselves. This is like all medical students come out of medical school with five ailments that they didn't know existed before they went in, they've been infected by five of them once they get out.
So yeah, it's a statement of faith and a way of life that I believe is the way forward for Christianity. It is a rejection of modernity. I don't believe that a theological statement of faith is going to be enough to set right what has been done wrong in the last few hundred years. So proterianism is definitely some theological statements of belief, and everyone's going to disagree on those things till kingdom come. It's also a statement of tribal beliefs in that I believe that humans are are meant to live within tribes, smaller groups of people.
I don't think hundred and two and three hundred million large nations are going to survive the future. I think the scale of what we live in now is unsustainable. So I'm suggesting a smaller way of living, a much more intimate way of grouping through tribes, through families. Church sort of arrives naturally as an expression of faith from family and tribe, rather than sort of a top down version, which is obviously different than Catholicism. But don't know how we're going to solve the scale problem, particularly in this world of post truth, where everyone has access to every bit of information.
And, you know, I think there was a lot of good that Catholicism brought to the world and sort of shielding everyone from the Bible, because it does create a lot of schism. And people nowadays would shriek in horror at the thought of me suggesting that, you know, perhaps everyone and their brother shouldn't be interpreting Scripture. But I've kind of seen the problems with it. And I'm guessing the early Catholics saw it too, and that they didn't come out of nowhere. They suggested maybe not, Maybe we should have a layer of truth that is, you know, sort of projected from above, and you can like it or not, but this is what we believe, and I'm I'm starting to to see value in that.
So I don't know. That's a quick That's five
Speaker 0: a good summary. This video is pretty interesting. Good stuff. So that still is it's kind of a spin on it'll still be considered Protestant. Right?
Or I know some non Catholic, non Orthodox Christians were even reject the term Protestant. So it's just curious how you look at it.
Speaker 1: It would be pre Protestant, pre Catholicism, and pre Nicene Creed. I mean, it would go way back. You know, everyone that's the proterian, you know, proto first prototype, that's where the the origin of the word comes from. Every denomination tries to suggest that they they know the way Christians always worshiped, and they're the authentic Christian expression. Sure.
I'm the same way. I get it. Everyone wants to think that. I'll be the first to admit there's plenty I'm wrong about. I'm sure there are plenty of things that are wrong in my belief system.
But it is an attempt to strip away some of what I consider the pagan trappings of modern Christianity. The immortal soul, for instance, that that was not an initial belief of the early Christian church. They didn't believe you had a soul that was separate from your physical body. They believed that when you died, you were dead. And the hope was in resurrection.
This is why Jesus's ministry was so successful is because he brought the hope of resurrection. And those people found it very enticing because they believed when you died, you were dead. So that's a sort of controversial theological topic I don't talk about a lot.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm not well versed enough in it to find any Catholic listeners watching. Why aren't you pointing out the Catholic response to this? Was prepared to do Catholic apologia here. But you know, that's that this is a very interesting read on things. So even though I don't share those views, happy to, you know, talk about it.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. So the age of envy, The Spark of Chaos, The Triumph of Ruin, and The War on God's Creation.
So this is the book. Will show it again. We'll have the link in the description on both X and on our Twitter. I try to say Twitter, not X. And and on Substack.
So people should go and definitely buy the book. So let's get into this. So what what is the general I referenced 09/19 or pardon me 1848. You have three different people And I think each of them represent a, the beginning or kind of a critical point in the development of three respective trends, which you view as negative for human civilization. And I think you probably, you know, see them as as interrelated.
Now, maybe I'm just totally off base with that. But based on based on what I've read from your book, that seems to be the case. So why don't you get into, I think a good place to start would be who these three people are, what they're about and what the problem is.
Speaker 1: Sure. I'll I'll start backwards. 1848 has been a pivotal year in human history that professors have studied, books have been written about. And people try and pick apart 1848 and find what is the theme? Why were there revolutions happening throughout Europe that all seemed to explode in that very year?
They were contagious. Other nations picked up on it. And I never found a good answer. I never could understand why 1848 was considered such a pivotal year in human history until I started realizing that there were three important philosophical, spiritual, sociological movements that all essentially started in 1848. The first of which is communism.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published Communist Manifesto in 1848. There was a gal named Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who's considered the godfather, if I may, of feminism, who held a famous convention in Seneca Falls, New York, which is considered the birthplace of feminism. And that was in 1848. In that same year, there was a exploration in Brazil searching for specimens to support a theory called natural selection. And it wasn't Charles Darwin, it was Wallace.
It was a partner of Darwin, or you might say a co discoverer of evolution or natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, who essentially took off to the Brazil to try and find specimens to prove this theory that species weren't immutable, and that in fact, a divine creator wasn't necessary for life as we know it at all. That was in 1848. So these three things sort of suddenly appeared in 1848. And that made me feel like, okay, maybe there's something here. Maybe there is the birth of communism, feminism and evolution, which I consider the sort of diabolical trinity of of modernism.
Why did they all start at the same time? What was it that led to these things happening around the same time? And through exhaustive reading and study, I came to the conclusion that envy was the seat of all of these schools of thought. And and it started in the late seventeen hundreds, early eighteen hundreds with the invention of the steam powered printing press, the steam powered train, and the telegraph, these technological advances gave birth to envy in such a way that humankind has never known before.
Speaker 0: So that's fascinating to me because when people talk about the consequences of of the industrial revolution, obviously the printing press precedes that. But you know, there's some of these great technological changes that result in huge ruptures. Envy normally isn't something that comes up. So I'm interested, I'm interested to hear the case. It's definitely a unique angle to take on these on these developments.
What is the, what is the, you know, what is your reasoning for thinking that the, you know, the printing press, steam power that these things are kind of rooted in a sense of envy? Because most people are like, oh, they're just like, you know, productive. It helps us, you know, get more, you know, be more literate or travel the world better at least back then. What's the case for it being linked or stemming from some kind of envious drive?
Speaker 1: Okay. Yep. Not rooted in envy, not stemming from envy, but giving birth to envy.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. The printing press certainly existed forever, four hundred years or so. The steam powered printing press made printing affordable. It allowed for the rise of newspapers, monographs, essays. It allowed for anyone to publish their ideas in mass and have them spread out and other people who normally couldn't afford them to read them.
So the printing steam powered printing press gave people an idea in France what was happening in Germany, and they gave people in Germany an idea of what was happening in England. And suddenly, people realized that others had it better than they did. Before that, they were sort of shielded. There was a natural filtration effect through distance and time that prevented people from realizing, hey, these guys over there, they they can vote. They don't have to pledge fealty to the sovereign.
They can vote their way and get what they want. And then suddenly, jealousy and envy started to appear because people understood that others had it better than they did. The steam powered train had the same effect in that you could travel to the metropolitan areas and realize, hey, there there are dresses here that my wife can't afford, or I can't afford for for her. And suddenly, she's jealous of things that I didn't know existed, and now we realize that we want them. So the
Speaker 0: the that's warning that's fascinating. And just the idea of, I think it's undeniable that as sort of mass literacy and, you know, the spread the spread of of these sorts of materials, It created the Joneses is not just like who's living right next door to you, right? It's people all over the world. And for ruling classes in different countries, you've got your people looking at other places and wondering if they're getting a bad deal. If you know, maybe a revolution is necessary because obviously we're talking about the early to mid nineteenth century here.
So the French Revolution already happened. You're already kind of into some of these these big, big more democratic social changes. That's a fascinating way of looking at it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the train was the next big one that allowed people to travel. And then the telegraph certainly added to the woah of the industrial revolution in that suddenly all news could be transmitted instantly. And things that might have filtered out over time and not have appeared as big of a deal as they they should have been, you know, that these things happen. So a bread riot in Paris could hit Germany instantly through the telegraph. And it just gave rise to a lot of problems in that people suddenly realized others had it better than them.
And this was happened throughout almost any technological advance. Unfortunately, the industrial revolution, there were a lot of problems that happened as people realized the hierarchy that was present in the world. And this is essentially what the response to all of the envy was that sort of happened throughout the 1800s leading up to 1848. The notion of hierarchy itself became so problematic that this is how feminism got its founding. This is how communism got its founding.
And although evolution didn't start specifically because of the rejection of the hierarchy of creation, it certainly was the engine that powered it. In fact, that was the original rejection in the Garden of Eden story. The Genesis account of creation is that Adam and Eve rejected the hierarchy of creation, which was that they were lesser than God. And that was the temptation of the serpent and the fruit, metaphorical or otherwise, however you want to explain it. The story is a great one, because it is the original temptation, which is to say, you are lower than God, you are beneath God, don't you want to be like God?
Don't you want to know good from evil like God. So evolution was essentially the final cosmic rejection of hierarchy, in that all animals are, are equal, we are all derivatives of some mutational freak genetic accident, and that God doesn't have any inherent hierarchy in the nature of creation other than what's just happened by chance. So those three things essentially are all the rejection of hierarchy. They all suggest that inequality is unnatural and wrong when in my opinion, inequality is the natural state of creation. And in fact, it's necessary for creation to survive.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's a very good way of looking at it. So I would imagine not to jump forward too far, but you definitely see how envy and egalitarianism are still, know, we've had so many revolutions in terms of digital technological mediums and mediums of communication that, yeah, you know, you're talking about the early nineteenth century and people finding out through the telegram or through, you know, print media that other people have it better in another country. And they're being shown bigger cities and people people are freer or perceived to be freer and so forth. Well, you definitely see that on social media. And it's funny that our kind of ruling class or at least our state department under previous management, you know, really really weaponized stuff like that to try to bring you see with Iran is just kind of one example where they really love promoting the idea that on social media that, you know, these Iranian women are rising up against, you know, the ruling class.
They see, they see how free, but I think that, I think that, you know, there's there's a state department propaganda, but I think there's some truth there that people in countries that are not western style democracies, they're they're they do look to the West very often, not always and they see, you know, just kind of the sense of freedom, maybe even the degeneracy you could say in Western. They kind of want it, they kind of want it. You know, lot of these people risk their lives getting on boats to come over here. And a lot of that is, you know, just because the stuff they see on TikTok these days or social media, they're like, man, look at how great it is over in Berlin. Time to take my, you know, two month old child on a raft and go over there.
So yeah, the connection between the point I'm making here is technology engendering a sense of resentment and envy in people is not something that was just happened for a little bit in the early nineteenth century. Right? This is something that still still is with us today and it probably has increased in intensity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. And airline travel, oceanic travel in the, you know, late eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds allowed for sort of unfettered access to other cultures and civilizations. Airlines have certainly increased that. The Internet itself has has increased it even more. So that at any given hour of any given day, any human being on the planet can find something to be envious of.
You know, the most beautiful woman on the planet can get on Instagram and find 10 other women who are even more beautiful than she is and have more followers than she has. And she's in a more exotic location than they've ever been. There's a never ending stream of discontent that technology and the industrial revolution have brought to humankind. So when you think back to the the Genesis story of the Tower Of Babel and the separation of races based on location and languages, there's sort of a metaphorical story there. Forget races for a moment.
And and the the separation of people in in a way that may may have minimized envy. It starts to feel prudent in a way. You know, it starts to feel that maybe the maybe social media isn't great for a people group who judges themselves purely on looks. When you can go on there at any given day and feel inferior, when God has blessed you with incredible beauty. But when you go on Instagram and you see computerized, you know, AI representations of humankind on there, it starts to make you feel pretty crummy.
Envy is definitely the original warning of the Genesis account of creation. And it's my hypothesis in the book that we are in the age of envy, something that has never happened in human history. You know, we we like to say history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. I think this is a new phenomenon. This is something that started certainly in earnest in 1848, if not, you know, a few decades before.
But ever since, envy has been rising through technological progress in such a way that Western civilization itself is beginning to break down. I don't think it can weather the envy that we've created through our progress and technology.
Speaker 0: Sure. There are definitely many factors in this in this all consuming envious drive that's that's having a negative impact on our civilization. You could certainly argue that behind much of the drive of behind quite a bit of wokeness is envy, plain and simple. It could be viewed as, I mean this whole, this group is oppressed this other group by this other group. Well, I mean the people saying that are either, maybe they're gaining something politically by saying that but that is ultimately an envious drive.
It's people looking at other groups of people who have more than the materially socially, whatever historically and saying, well, you know, you didn't get this the right way. You got this through ill means or something of And the I want it so behind, you know, it's the driving force behind wealth redistribution along class racial ethnic lines. It's the driving force behind certain factors, the desire for one race to be like elevated you know, socially, not even just with money, but to be validated more in media. You saw that during 2020 where, I mean, you know, it was almost demanded that everyone say only nice things about about black people and yeah. So that that really does seem like would you say envy is the primary driving factor of today's, you know, woke left?
Or is it is it maybe just one factor of many?
Speaker 1: Well, of course, you know, every author and thinker wants to think they've come up with the universal principle for explaining something. So I can't help but to cast everything within the lens of envy currently, you know, not to belittle the the people protesters on the left, but you you look at these mugshot lineups of the ne'er do wells who protest whatever on any given day. And these are not people who won the the lottery in terms of looks or probably intelligence. These are not people who are probably happy with what they were dealt, the hand they were dealt. I'm sure you've seen these lineups, these mugshot lineups of these people.
And I don't say that in a pejorative sense or in a way to belittle them, but I understand. I mean, I'm not like Clark Kent here, but I understand there's envy there. There's envy that they weren't given the silver spoon that others were. They weren't given the genetic looks that someone else might have. And naturally, there's going to be envy, particularly when the media and certain parties within the political spectrum, like you said, weaponize this to their advantage.
So, yeah, it's going to continue to fester. The more multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual, multispiritual, all these things are going to continue to create envy in that certain people will be better at certain things based on whatever attributes they have. And this is unfortunately the nature of creation is that there is inequality at every level. From language, you know, people like to focus on race, but it's more pervasive. Race is almost a meaningless construct compared to many other factors.
I talk about in the book language itself. That was really the birth of nationalism. You know, there's a lot of talk on the internet about nationalism and Christian nationalism. And then if you want to go even further, ethno nationalism. The original nationalism was actually lingual.
It was based on language or dialect. It didn't really have anything to do with race. It was the bond that comes from people speaking the same language. And a lot of people don't know this, but nationalism used to not exist. It was not a thing.
You would pledge loyalty to the church. And then under that, you would pledge fealty to your king or your sovereign. And then you might have the people group around you. But the concept of a country of nationalism just didn't exist. People didn't feel patriotic.
They pledged loyalty to their religion, to their sovereign and to their family. If there was anything that bound them together, it was language. It was the dialect. It wasn't some border or some, you know, national anthem that they all put their heart their hand on their heart and sang. So I think the the discussion about nationalism to me is a little sophomoric when you understand human nature is much more specific than that.
I I tell people all the time, I'm worse than racist. And people laugh at that, and they think I'm trying to, you know, do some clickbait. And in a way, it is. But I say, I have people in my own family who I don't want to be around at Christmas time or Thanksgiving. Like, I literally don't want to be with them.
What what hope do we have in unity, if my own kin, my own blood and kin, I don't want to be around them, maybe because of some minor difference between them. So the notion of nationalism and restoration because of this or that is it again, it feels hopeless to me when I realized people's original alignment was was based on dialect alone. Now you might say, well, they were all the same ethnicity and religion. So that's what they were bonding by. But no, there was actually a lot of intermingling of different ethnicities in Europe, but they spoke the same dialect and that bound them together.
So yeah, it's an interesting concept of how this is going to play out. How do you unwind this? If this truly is a problem, if envy is truly a problem because of technology, how do you remove envy? And the left's idea is essentially erase all envy by erasing all distinction. This is sort of the defining deviancy down.
Think Rush Limbaugh used to say that, and Thomas Sowell has a similar saying in that, you crush all distinction. You can't raise people up because inevitably there's inequality. So the only way to get rid of inequality is to crush everyone to the same level. And that's essentially, I think a lot of what you see in modern culture nowadays is in colleges and universities. Meritocracy is frowned upon because it rewards those who do well.
We can't have that because inequality will always hound us if we don't do something actively to crush it.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Trump just announced that the U.S. has bombed three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. He stresses that this was a one-time thing. If this gets us sucked into some big quagmire, then that’s clearly bad. But if that’s it, good. We will see… https://t.co/w0dmcXREAj
reSee.it AI Summary
I remember Lou Dobbs on CNN in 2008, expressing skepticism about the government's commitment to the people's interests, particularly regarding immigration. His insights highlighted a growing concern about federal priorities. However, after attending a FAIR conference in 2009, he resigned from CNN. He later found a platform on Fox News, where he became a strong advocate for border security and American interests. I reflect on his legacy as a great patriot. Rest in peace.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Lou Dobbs on CNN in 2008: "There isn't a person listening to our voices or watching us who believes for a second that this government, this government, this Justice Department, this Department of Homeland Security has their interests as their number one priority." It is fascinating that Dobbs' accurate analysis of the federal government's betrayal of America on the issue of immigration was platformed on CNN fewer than two decades ago. But things changed quickly. In 2009, Dobbs was forced to resign after he attended a FAIR conference on border security. Fortunately, he went on to find success on Fox News, where he was a stalwart defender of America's borders, Donald Trump, and the interests of American citizens. Lou Dobbs was a great patriot. Rest in peace.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Congressman Michael McCall is demanding answers and accountability from the Justice Department and State Department regarding the death of a border patrol agent allegedly killed by a drug dealer who fled to Mexico. McCall is calling for urgent hearings, expressing outrage that extradition papers weren't served before the suspect's release by Mexican authorities. He says someone "screwed up" and wants to find out what happened. McCall stated that the Justice Department responded to him, saying they view killing a law enforcement officer as a high priority. McCall also mentioned urging the president to pardon Ramos and Compion, two former border patrol agents who are still in prison.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now some in congress are demanding answers from our government. Congressman Michael McCall calling for an urgent hearing joining us tonight from Capitol Hill. Congressman, good to have you here.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Lou.
Speaker 0: Know, demanding hearings from certainly Homeland Security. What's the other committee? I'm sorry. You have
Speaker 1: The foreign affairs because when you have an extradition take place, have the basically, Justice Department and the State Department.
Speaker 0: Well, I guess I got a little hung up on the Homeland Security Committee because Benny Thompson, the chairman of that committee, actually fighting the construction of a fence and the and security on our border. I just wondered if there was any realistic hope in the world that he would do anything for US Border Patrol Agent and the nation's interest.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Unfortunately, we haven't had one serious border security bill come out in this congress, but I'm
Speaker 0: outraged That's just two years, though, congressman. That's just two years. You wouldn't expect too much, would you?
Speaker 1: I am outraged on this particular case. You have a drug dealer that came into The United States, killed a border patrol agent in cold blood, flow you know, he fleed back to Mexico, and now he's he's out at large. And there are a lot of questions that have been unanswered, including from the justice department and the state department in terms of why weren't the extradition papers served on this individual before he was released, by the Mexican authorities.
Speaker 0: Well, the the question is, will the administration you you've got a Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security Committee as well as foreign affairs. You've got a Republican president who will ignore you, who would rather put our own border patrolman in jail than get the killer of of one of our border patrol agents. I mean, you've got this just about as screwed up, not you, but we've got it about as screwed up as you can get it, a government. What possible hope is there for the American people that we're gonna see our law enforcement agents receive the support they should have, the respect, and the honor they should have. And what's it gonna take?
We're gonna have to clean up both of these parties?
Speaker 1: We are we are demanding, answers here, demanding accountability. I agree with you. No one's more frustrated than members of congress like myself. You know, I got a letter back from the Justice Department and their response to this case was that they view killing a law enforcement officer as a high priority for the department. You can be rest assured that we have been and remain fully committed to the case and that the case has the attention of those at the highest level of the Department of Justice.
Well
Speaker 0: There isn't a single I'm not gonna rest.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna rest assured.
Speaker 0: Congressman, I you know, we appreciate everything you're doing. But there isn't a person listening to our voices or watching us who believes for a second that this government, this justice department, this Department of Homeland Security has their interest as their number one priority.
Speaker 1: You know, I met with the border sheriffs in Texas at their convention. They're listening. The border patrol agents are listening. Certainly, the the family of border patrol agent Aguilar, who was struck down in cold blood, they're listening. I think a lot of Americans are listening, and I think we need to ratchet up the pressure to have hearings in this matter and get to the bottom of what really happened here.
Somebody screwed up in this case. Yeah. Somebody really screwed up, and we need to find out what happened.
Speaker 0: We also need to find out why Ramos and Compion, two former border patrol agents, are still in prison, and more than seven months have passed since their appellate hearings.
Speaker 1: Well, we've certainly urged the president on many occasions to to pardon them and to release them. And it has been a frustrating exercise. This latest episode, though, of the brutal killing of a border patrol agent in The United States, We've got to get to the bottom of this case.
Speaker 0: Congressman Mike McCall, we thank you for being here, and
Speaker 1: good luck.
Speaker 0: We appreciate everything you're doing.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been reflecting on the recent coverage by Vittoria Elliott regarding the young men involved with DOGE. Some question the public interest in revealing their identities, while others point out the backlash, including alarming death threats from some on Bluesky. There’s a debate about whether this constitutes doxing, but I’m not keen on getting into semantics. It’s clear that the identities were disclosed, and the reactions have been intense, raising concerns about the implications of such revelations.
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Vittoria Elliott is the journalist responsible for doxing the young men involved with DOGE. https://t.co/O4LqLFDGGW
@atroyn - anton
what exactly is wired’s purpose in publishing this article ? it includes names and personal details of the young men in question - what is intended to be achieved? in what sense is this in the public interest? https://t.co/AnCXi4MDGN
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
WIRED has declared itself an enemy of the Trump administration, which received a historic mandate from the American people, whose will these reporters are eager to thwart. @elonmusk and others involved in the admin should take note! https://t.co/D3cdOhU1kZ
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
After WIRED revealed the identities of the "DOGE six," insane liberals on Bluesky are posting EXPLICIT death threats against them. @EagleEdMartin, I hope you're looking into this! https://t.co/OW15zbTvdC
@restoreorderusa - Patrick Casey
Lots of replies saying "This isn't a dox!" I'm not interested in splitting hairs over a nebulously defined word. She revealed the identities of people involved with DOGE. Not saying that's necessarily a crime or unethical, just that she did it.