Citizens for Sanity releases what might be the most powerful political ad ever, a barrage of graphic violence with a narrator listing growing crime statistics. But this is not Hollywood fiction.
Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott create five new episodes of Right Angle each week, funded by our Members. When you join the producers, you unlock access to Backstage content, the Member-written blog, forums and comments. Tap the big green button above to join.
To donate without joining, tap the big blue button.
Explore the full archive of Right Angle.
29 replies on “Telling the Truth: ‘Most Powerful Political Ad Ever’ Features Graphic Violence that All Need to See”
Scott is what I call the “mushy middle”. They refuse to pick a side and pretend that “it’s always been this way” or “it’ll work itself out” or “I think both sides have some good ideas”. The problem with that “mushy” thinking is, only one of the sides is willing to compromise. The other demands complete submission or death. The mushy middle will get us all killed.
The imagery is very powerful, but the voice in the ad sounds like it’s for a blockbuster movie. That detracts from it, giving people a way to mentally check out.
Scott,I thought you handled Bill’s ambush very well. Maybe you guys had talked about this in backstage, so this was scripted? If not, you exhibited grace under pressure, well done.
Bill, you need to take some time off, or something. Your face, in other vids, is rock hard, you are hurting. Your words in this vid were insulting to Scott. Don’t put words in someone else’s mouth, that is stupid, and a waste of my time listening to them. It’s also insulting to me – “my listeners are too dumb to figure this out, so I’ll tell them what Scott really means.” Thanks but no thanks.
Regarding the crime-run-amuck vid – horrible, glad someone had the guts to put it together. I’m voting Republican, and I hope the rest of the country is voting Republican also. Frankly, since no one went to prison for the vote steal in 2020, I doubt the 2022 vote will be clean. Biden tried to incite a riot with his 2 recent speeches, doubtless hoping a “civil war” would justify delaying the 2022 vote for another year. Based on this vid, I’d say war is already here, but it’s the demon-crats waging it. Time will tell.
They did not talk about Bill’s topic much backstage, at least in the recorded part, so I don’t think that was scripted. I did read your comment before watching the video and was expecting one of Bill’s “talking past each other” bits with Scott. Having watched the video, I think Bill was more setting up a devil’s advocate or strawman type idea, not that he thought Scott himself was going to push the idea he proposed.
Bill has seemed a lot more on edge recently though, I would agree.
I feel the need to come to Bill’s defense. I do not feel that he is being “edgy”, and definitely does not need to take any time off. My son works and lives in New York, and I wish to God that he did not. When I witnessed on the nightly news (which I no longer watch) a gal on the subway getting really slapped around by some punk – 2 men standing right near her – took out their cameras and never tried to stop him! We need more people with Bill Whittle’s passion about what is actually happening in today’s world and taking action instead of constantly “analyzing” and looking at the past.
I agree with your call to action to fight criminals. The problem is, the Soros prosecutors, and others appointed by Democrats, will kick you in the teeth if you interfere. So, Good Samaritans are punished while the bad guys are rewarded. I understand the hesitancy for guys to intervene. We all saw how Rittenhouse was treated; I donated to his legal fund, what I’d really like to do is different.
I think there is a difference between being passionate about a topic or cause and going over the line, getting worked up, whatever you want to use to describe going too far. I do not think Bill is the type of high energy person that shouts about everything so some of his patterns of speech and energy on certain topics have struck me as concerning. Not that he’s wrong but I hope he’s not under too much stress.
Thanks for your insight, Karl. Appreciate your comments.
Brooks
We need more ads like that but … They need to be made with the same level of professionalism and have spots in the video where anyone who wants to use them can insert their endorsement and promote their own candidacy. Meaning any Conservative that wants can use them for their own campaigns and the ads are purposely driven for that use.
Someone has to pay for that so a revenue stream needs to be devised to fund making that sort of ad. People need to eat and pay their bills so I’m not suggesting that anyone do this kind of work for free. I am suggesting that alternate funding be arranged so that the candidates spend little or no money on the ads.
Things like Go Fund Me are what I have in mind but obviously that specific platform is not the best choice. We all saw what Go Fund Me did to the Truckers movement in Canada.
Setting this up would have the effect of making hard hitting, professional grade ads widely available to any Conservative candidate that wants to use them. From a local School Board or County Commissioner all the way up to POTUS. Which means these sorts of ads will get very broad exposure.
A lot of the time we deal in theories, ideologies and policies without any practical means of applying them. We already know “what” and the thing we need badly is “how”.
This is an example of “how”.
I had to go back and re-listen to Scott’s comments and while I initially thought that Scott was somewhat ducking the question, i.e., (paraphrased) “I don’t know how to compare what we’re seeing in the ad versus what has happened in the past”. There can be no doubt that woke policies, soft-on-crime DAs, and sheer villainy, mob violence, and other despicable acts by humans have become a serious problem.
But Scott does have a good point – the ubiquity of cameras and the propensity of people to whip out their cell phones and start recording crimes/altercations/incidents without bothering to assist others is certainly also a factor.
Tort laws and the threat of legal action against regular people for having the audacity to help someone in need (and it goes awry) have also created this stupid mindset of just documenting an incident. Forget the person bleeding to death on the street — it’s far more important to record it. I will never understand that mindset.
Also to Scott’s point — this ad is only half the presentation. Having the answer to the problem is key. It’s common to bellyache about a problem and far less common to offer solutions to those problems after the bellyaching is done.
I am not a lawyer, but don’t most places have some form of legal protection for actions taken by a “good Samaritan”?
Some places have laws to protect “good Samaritans”. Some take it the other direction and have laws that they can use to prosecute people for not helping someone in mortal need.
In the latter case helping someone is generally something along the lines of if you see a person get shot by a gangbanger you’re required to dial 911 and summon help. Of course the 911 system in a large metro area like N.Y., Chicago or L.A. is usually so overloaded as to be useless. Add that to in neighborhoods where you might see such a thing calling 911 also summons the police, which makes you a ‘rat’ to the gangbangers … You see where I’m going with this I’m sure.
That either set of laws is something our overlords think we need for any reason is what I take objection to. Someone should not have to stop to consider their legal liabilities when rendering aid to people in distress. Nor should the courts mandate and second guess what aid should have been rendered.
Malice and mischance come in so many permutations that it’s impossible and unreasonable for a legal standard of forced aid to be set. It’s also unreasonable and deleterious to allow anyone to sue anyone else when they were merely trying to help. There is a common law ‘Reasonable Person Standard’ that can apply to gross idiocy and that’s as far as it needs to go. Most times any help, even poor help, is better than no help at all.
True Story Anecdote Time –
I think many here know that I am a native NY’er, born in the Bronx and my parents left for the burbs when they saw the crime rising. This was 1969. We frequented the city a lot and saw first hand the down turn. And then also the improvements brought on by Giuliani. Enough so that 7 years ago, I felt comfortable enough to allow my wife and teenage daughter to take the train to Penn Station for a long weekend, without ME!
I would not do that now.
But here is the other part.
Last week, the three of us were enjoying the beach in SC and went out to a dueling piano bar (now that Ronette is over 21 we can do that together). There was a large group at a table right in front of us of late 20 somethings. We got to talking and they are all from the Bronx as well. One couple had gone to school nearby and after moving back the the NYC area for a couple years had come back to SC. They brought a bunch of friends down specifically to show them how nice it is to live like humans.
All of them live in Jersey where the rent is only really high [rather than the ridiculously high of Manhattan or even Brooklyn now (thanks hipsters)]. They talked about NY the same way I did in the late 70s. i.e. trash and crime everywhere, unsafe, etc. In one long weekend, they were all making plans to get out. One of their number was a young woman only a couple of years older than Ronette who had recently moved to Raleigh. She was telling them all the same thing as well. Get out now.
Now, I know that this is a small subset. But they saw first hand that you don’t have to live in hovels with drug addicts, spend all your money on rent and be able to breathe fresh air.
I would guess all of them will be moving to parts south very soon.
Oh, and half of them are not college grads, they were in construction and other trades. Saw all of the buildings going up in the free state of SC and heard about NC and sw VA and realized that finding a job will be the easiest part. Deciding where will take longer.
Oh, and they were also shouting Let’s Go Brandon with the rest of the bar (except for 1 couple – Brad and Karen – who thought it was really offensive and complained to one of the staff. The staff told them they were free to leave 😉 )
let’s just hope they don’t register as democrats and vote to bring the NYC lunacy with them
Definitely seemed like non-biden types
Great story and an excellent punchline to close it out!
Jail and prison time are easy – three hots and a cot, and you get to hang with your homies. Instead, let’s institute BANISHMENT based on a point system. Accumulate 100 points and you need to leave the country. Let the criminal search for somewhere willing to take them, be it Somalia, Greenland, or wherever. This would also dovetail into illegal migration and the adoption of the E-Verify system. If you don’t want to play nice, you should not be our problem.
The fly in that particular ointment would be finding places that would accept, and keep, our undesirables. Which means it won’t work.
We would have to use territory under our own sovereign control for the “Land of the Banished” and that means the Left would simply weasel up a way to get their criminals back on our streets. We would have a scenario similar to the movies “Escape from New York” or “Escape from L.A.” and the Left would simply pull down the barriers and allow the criminal element to flood back into the rest of the nation the next time they gained enough political power to do that. Proof of that is in the comparison between Giuliani’s New York and modern day New York. The Left would love to create a flood of criminals.
Fidel Castro did this banishment boogie with the Mariel Boatlift. He emptied his prisons and sent all the convicts to the U.S in 1980, along with a significant percentage of genuine political refugees. We couldn’t send them back because Cuba is not a free country so you can’t just put the criminals on a plane or a boat and after it lands in Cuba the passengers become Cuba’s problem again.
We also didn’t know who the criminals were and could not separate them from the real refugees. So we had to wait until their criminal nature manifested through criminal actions here in the U.S.
Another way to go about it might be to offer certain countries cash aid to offset the degradation of their society. That won’t work either. Those countries would find themselves in a position to blackmail us. As in “Give us more money or we’ll ship your criminals back to you.”
There are many other sound arguments about why banishment won’t work.
Banishment sounds good and if there were a practical way to implement it I’d be all for it. There just isn’t any way to do that which holds any promise of success.
I don’t suppose, as part of the “move the Department of the Interior to the interior” type programs we could not buy a bunch of marginal farm land, build a bit of a city, name it Utopia, and send all of the paroles there?
Probably a pipe dream, if we cannot even build a fence on the international border we would never build one on a county border. Further pipe dream would be all of the socialists moving to their paradise of no cops, no taxes and only Whole Foods franchises where they can be the “some animals are more equal than others” types.
Do you recall the short story “Coventry”? Part of Heinlein’s future history.
Wow, great analogy! Maybe we can call ours “New York City” or “California”
Need to get to work on the barrier, though.
Yeah, but even if we had such a thing the weak spot is the finger on its power button.
About the guy who antisocially punched another guy in the nose and refused to repent and accept “treatment” for his “damaged” psychology? If that’s the one then yeah, I recall it, vaguely.
That’s the one. That version of the USA had taken a chunk of either Nebraska or Oklahoma, put a “barrier” around it and put all the anti-social people (who were unwilling to undergo treatment) on the inside of it. Interesting study of freedom and bullies.
The funny thing about that story and Heinlein’s take on it is that I doubt even Robert Heinlein in his wildest dreams thought people would be sent to Coventry (our contemporary equivalent being Cancel Culture) because they objected to butchering confused kids and spoke against institutional racism, which is what CRT is, being promoted by government entities and paid for with taxpayers money.
I have no doubt that if such a place could be devised the Left would send us all there post haste. I’m especially certain after seeing Fuhrer Biden’s furious tirade a few days ago.
If there’s anything more ludicrous than an old man throwing a temper tantrum it’s an old man with POWER doing what Joe the Potato did. The former is silly and the latter is scary as hell.
I can’t help but wonder, if he lived today, what sort of stories Bob Heinlein would pull from the current social situation. I wish I could write like he did, I’d give that a try if I thought I could.
Bill, I’m surprised that you didn’t make the connection between crime here and a similar point you had previously made. The reason Leftist politicians allow crime among the commoners is the same reason they allow dirty needles and fecal matter in the streets: because they can. It’s just another way of lording their dominion over the serfs
The campaign slogan of the Demonrat Party is effectively, “Make America Hell Again.”
The Left will whine that this is a video meant to scare white people and demonize blacks. And I would counter that the truth is more important than their feelings. Allowing someone over 200 lbs. in weight to kick a girl lying on the sidewalk in the face and get away with it is the definition of living in Hell. (I guarantee that if a white man did this to a black woman heads would roll, as they should, no argument from anyone of any political pursuation.)