Connect with us

International

Dan Crenshaw says he’ll “f*cking kill Tucker Carlson” on video

Published

3 minute read

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Republican Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw was caught on video saying he would “f*cking kill” Tucker Carlson if he ever met him, only to deny the threat shortly afterward. The footage, released by GB News, contradicts Crenshaw’s denial and raises questions about his remarks toward the Daily Caller co-founder.

Key Details:

  • GB News reporter Steven Edginton posted a video showing Crenshaw making the violent comment after an interview in early February.
  • Crenshaw denied the accusation when questioned by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, responding with “lol, no” on X.
  • GB News then released a video where Crenshaw explicitly stated he would “f*cking kill” Carlson, doubling down when Edginton initially laughed it off.

Diving Deeper:

The controversy began when GB News reporter Steven Edginton shared on X that Crenshaw made the threat after an interview earlier this month. According to Edginton, when he asked Crenshaw if he had ever met Tucker Carlson, Crenshaw responded, “I would kill him if I saw him.” When Edginton laughed, Crenshaw reportedly reiterated, “No seriously, I would kill him.”

After Edginton’s post, Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly questioned Crenshaw about the accusation. Crenshaw responded dismissively, writing, “lol, no.” However, less than 30 minutes later, GB News released a video that contradicted Crenshaw’s denial.

The footage showed Edginton asking, “Have you ever met Tucker?” as the two removed their microphones. Crenshaw responded, “No, we’ve talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I’ll f*cking kill him.” Edginton laughed, but Crenshaw continued, “No, seriously, I’ll kill him. He’s the worst person I’ve ever met.”

The release of the video prompted widespread backlash and demands for clarification. The Daily Caller reached out to Crenshaw’s office for comment, and a spokesperson responded, “No, of course not,” when asked if the statement was serious.

Crenshaw’s remarks are particularly controversial given his position as a sitting U.S. Congressman. Threats of violence, even if intended as a joke, carry serious implications and have sparked debate over the tone of political discourse in America.

This incident also adds to the ongoing tension between Crenshaw and Tucker Carlson, who have clashed over policy issues and public commentary. Carlson has been a vocal critic of establishment Republicans, a group with which Crenshaw is frequently associated.

The fallout from Crenshaw’s comments is likely to continue as political figures and media outlets react to the video. Neither Crenshaw nor Carlson have issued further statements regarding the incident at the time of this report.

Dan Crenshaw” by Gage Skidmore, licensed by CC BY-SA 2.0.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Artificial Intelligence

UK Police Chief Hails Facial Recognition, Outlines Drone and AI Policing Plans

Published on

logo

By

Any face in the crowd can be caught in the dragnet of a digital police state.

The steady spread of facial recognition technology onto Britain’s streets is drawing alarm from those who see it as a step toward mass surveillance, even as police leaders celebrate it as a powerful new weapon against crime.
Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is a system that scans people’s faces in public spaces and compares them against watchlists.
Civil liberties groups warn it normalizes biometric monitoring of ordinary citizens, while the Metropolitan Police insist it is already producing results.
Britain’s senior police leadership is promoting these biometric and artificial intelligence systems as central to the future of policing, with commissioner Sir Mark Rowley arguing that such tools are already transforming the way the Met operates.
Speaking to the TechUK trade association, Rowley described Live Facial Recognition (LFR) as a “game-changing tool” and pointed to more than 700 arrests linked to its use so far this year.
Camera vans stationed on streets have been deployed to flag people wanted for serious crimes or those breaking license conditions.
Rowley highlighted a recent deployment at the Notting Hill Carnival, where he joined officers using LFR.
“Every officer I spoke to was energized by the potential,” he said to The Sun. According to the commissioner, the weekend brought 61 arrests, including individuals sought in cases of serious violence and offenses against women and girls.
Rowley claimed that the technology played “a critical role” in making the carnival safer.
Beyond facial recognition, Rowley spoke of expanding the Met’s reliance on drones. “From searching for missing people, to arriving quickly at serious traffic incidents, or replacing the expensive and noisy helicopter at large public events,” he said, “done well, drones will be another tool to help officers make faster, more informed decisions on the ground.”
The commissioner also promoted the V100 program, which draws on data analysis to focus resources on those considered the highest risk to women.
He said this initiative has already led to the conviction of more than 160 offenders he described as “the most prolific and predatory” in London.
Artificial Intelligence is being tested in other areas too, particularly to review CCTV footage.
Rowley noted the labour involved in manually tracing suspects through crowded areas. “Take Oxford Street, with 27 junctions—a trawl to identify a suspect’s route can take two days,” he explained.
“Now imagine telling AI to find clips of a male wearing a red baseball cap between X and Y hours, and getting results in hours. That’s game-changing.”
While the Met portrays these systems as advances in crime prevention, their deployment raises questions about surveillance creeping deeper into everyday life.
Expansions in facial recognition, drone monitoring, and algorithmic analysis are often introduced as matters of efficiency and safety, but they risk building an infrastructure of constant observation where privacy rights are gradually eroded.
Shaun Thompson’s case has already been cited by campaigners as evidence of the risks that come with rolling out facial recognition on public streets.
He was mistakenly identified by the technology, stopped, and treated as though he were a wanted suspect before the error was realized.
Incidents like this highlight the danger of false matches and the lack of safeguards around biometric surveillance.
For ordinary people, the impact is clear: even if you have done nothing wrong, you can still find yourself pulled into a system that treats you as guilty first and asks questions later.
Continue Reading

Business

Global elites insisting on digital currency to phase out cash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The aim is to have the digital euro fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system described in Agenda 2030.

It always pays to scrutinize closely the comments of financial elites because they are rarely honest about their intentions. An instance is the comments of Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (ECB) who said there will be a vote next month in the European Union parliament on the next step toward creating a digital euro, which would be a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

A central bank digital currency is money issued by the central bank in digital form as opposed to digital credit issued by banks, which is the dominant form of money in Western societies. She claims that it will mean more freedom for Europeans and that there is nothing to fear.

Lagarde anticipates launching the digital euro in about 18 months. The aim is to have it fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system that is described in Agenda 2030.

Lagarde’s blandishments about what the digital euro represents do not survive close examination. She acknowledged that the main concern of the population is the privacy implications, claiming the ECB is looking at a technology that will offer protections. The private banks, she said, will apply the “rules of scrutiny” that already have access to the transactions. “We are not interested in the data. The private banks are interested in the data.”

Lagarde also said that the “people have dictated” the transition to a digital euro. This looks dubious. Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB is democratically elected. And if the main concern people have with a CBDC is privacy, then why would people prefer it over cash, which is immune to scrutiny? It is not as if a digital euro would satisfy an unmet need. Digital money – credit and online transactions – is already freely available in the banking system.

The ECB is also speaking out of both sides of its mouth, saying on one hand that the digital euro will only complement cash and on the other that cash will be eliminated.

Lagarde made it clear that the aim is to phase out cash completely. Agenda 2030, she claims, “can only be enforced in a cashless economy.” Why? What is it about cash that makes environmental policies impossible to implement? The answer is surely that a digital euro is needed to control people’s behavior, forcing them to comply with environmental rules.

Previous comments by central bankers suggest there is good reason for Europeans to be extremely suspicious. In 2021, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, Agustín Carstens, said: “We don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000-peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

The pretext for the financial power play is climate change and the push toward net zero. A European CBDC is not, as implied by Lagarde, the creation of a new digital monetary mechanism. As economist Richard Werner points out, that already exists – credit and debit cards, for example. The significance of a digital euro is that it threatens the banking system.

That problem does not seem to concern the ECB, however. Indeed, fundamentally altering the banking system may be what they are aiming for. Lagarde said “climate compliance” will become a core element of bank supervision, not a separate initiative, “because climate change presents significant, material financial risks to banks and the entire financial system.”

The ECB’s supervision will mandate that banks integrate the management of climate-related and environmental risks into their existing risk management processes, particularly through new prudential transition planning requirements under what is called CRD VI. European banking, it seems, will no longer be defined by profitability and fiscal soundness but also by the politics of climate change.

The slipperiness of the ECB‘s arguments point to a much darker ambition. Werner says when CBDCs are connected to digital IDs “we are talking about the most totalitarian control system in human history … it gives you as a controller complete visibility on what everyone is doing, every transaction.

“The monitoring is only one aspect. These CBDCs are programmable and you can use big data algorithms, which they sell to us as artificial intelligence, in order to have rules about who can buy what and for what purpose, at what time and at what place – and therefore control all your movement. In the history of dictatorships, there never has been such a powerful control tool.”

There is a flaw, though, in the ECB’s push to change Europe’s financial architecture that may prove fatal to its ambitions. The EU and ECB do not have genuine central control. When the euro was established in 1998, the only way Germany was able to join was on the condition there was no consolidation of the government debt. So, although the ECB notionally sets interest rates for the zone, government debt is held at the national level and each country’s interest rate differs.

The ECB is thus a central bank in name only, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, or for that matter most country’s central banks, that oversee their national government debt. A European nation can choose to exit the EU, and each has to have its own monetary policy in spite of the ECB setting a uniform rate.

The push to create a digital euro is most likely an attempt to deal with these contradictions, but at best it will be a makeshift solution and it will take very little for it to fall apart. Disintegration of the European Union, and the common currency, is not out of the question.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is going in the opposite direction. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC directly to individuals.

European debt is becoming increasingly parlous, especially in France where there have even been suggestions that there might need to be assistance from the International Monetary Fund. Italy’s debt, which is 138 percent of GDP, is also problematic. Lagarde is hoping for a rollout of the digital euro in 2027 and completion in 2030. But the Euro zone, and the ECB that oversees it, may not last that long.

Continue Reading

Trending

X